Clustering the mediators between the sales control systems and the sales performance using the AMO model: A narrative systematic literature review

Intangible Capital IC, 2018 – 14(2): 387-408 – Online ISSN: 1697-9818 – Print ISSN: 2014-3214 https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Clustering the mediators between the sales control systems and the sales performance using the AMO model: A narrative systematic literature review Alejandro Benet-Zepf1, Juan A. Marin-Garcia2, Ines Küster3 1ESIC Business and Marketing School (Spain) 2ROGLE, Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) 3Universitat de València (Spain) alejandro[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Received November, 2017 Accepted January, 2018 Abstract Purpose: To identify all types of sales force control systems in the academic literature, and to cluster the mediators between these controls and the performances, according to the AMO model (abilities, motivations, and opportunities), analysing how each of these three groups of mediators are influenced by control systems, and how they impact on the sales performance, using a systematic literature review. Design/methodology: Scientific papers published during the last 32 years, using as databases: Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Science Direct, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Business, Management and Social Sciences were taken as selection fields. False positives identification, exclusions after reading the abstracts, and after reading the whole article, was performed by the authors by consensus. 114 articles of the initial selection of non-repeated references, together with 28 additional citations integrated the final selection. Findings: A new framework based on a grouping of mediators between the control systems and the performances, into abilities, motivations and capabilities is proposed. Practical implications: These findings suggest as a managerial contribution, that coaching and leading -rather than commandingto be a more appropriate control attitude, especially when the salesperson is younger or unexperienced. Originality/value: As academic result, the review highlights that all three groups from the AMO model evidence positive impacts on sales performance when a behavioral control system (mostly from the capability part) is in use, by enhancing salesperson’s skills, motivation, and organizational conditions and support, fostering as a result, a salesperson relational approach and a customer orientation, which generate the best outcomes in the long term. Keywords: sales control systems, sales management, AMO model, behavior control, output control Jel Codes: M12 -387- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 1. Introduction Sales control systems are tools used by managers to ensure efficiency by preventing opportunistic behavior, and are the organization’s procedures for monitoring, directing, evaluating and compensating its employees (Anderson & Oliver, 1987), oriented to the attainment of the organizational objectives (Auh & Menguc, 2007; Challagalla & Shervani, 1996; Grant & Cravens, 1996; Jaworski, Stathakopoulos & Krishnan, 1993). Salesforce represents the largest part of marketing personnel and budget in many firms (Cravens, Ingram & LaForge, 1993; Piercy, 2006), especially in the industrial sector (Krafft, 1999; Robertson & Anderson, 1993), justifying the importance of control on sales activities as a means to improve organizational effectiveness and customer satisfaction. Salesperson performance has been related to the sales organization effectiveness, so understanding what drives sales performance is becoming an essential sales management assignment (Grant & Cravens, 1996). Baldauf, Cravens and Piercy’s (2005) examination of the state of knowledge concerning sales management control strategies updated the main findings, as well as the antecedents and consequences of control systems to date, and placed a research agenda with three main issues: (1) conceptualization of sales management control, (2) antecedents of sales management control strategy, and (3) effect of control systems on salesperson (characteristics and performance) and organizational effectiveness. Previous research on sales management identified inconsistent results trying to demonstrate linear relationships between system controls and performances: Cravens, Lassk, Low, Marshall and Moncrief, (2004) highlighted better performances using highcontrol systems, while Jaworski et al. (1993) found no differences under different control patterns, which suggests a complex multidimensional linkage, resulting from a large amount of mediators between the control systems and the performances (individual, group and organizational), which have been identified and studied by scholars during the last three decades. The authors’ review on sales management control systems (2017) found general agreement on scholars, that behavior-based controls align the salesperson with the long term interests of the company, while outcome-based controls may be more effective in the short term, but may lose customer orientation and customer satisfaction, which are key factors for a company to continue maintaining its market shares and profits. Another widespread evidence is that a high behavioral performance results in a high individual outcome performance, which implies that salespeople with highest outcome standards are those with the best technical knowledge, provide the customer with the better and earliest information, and make the best sales presentations, so that managers expect salespeople to perform well on both dimensions of performance (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram & LaForge, 1996). The large amount of suppliers in most industrial products has made strategic marketing managers to be aware of the importance of relationship marketing. Customer orientation has become the kingpin to increase long-term value, and the expansion of the customer base, and transactional relationships are ceasing to be practice in use for dominant firms (Bradford, Brown, Ganesan, Hunter, Onyemah, Palmatier et al., 2010). Behavior control emphasizes long-term orientation (Madhani, 2015) and results in higher behavioral performance and consequently relationship marketing, while output (outcome) control focuses on short-term results and transactional relationships, and is not widely accepted as an antecedent of outcome performance, especially in the long run. According to this new paradigm, scholars pursued to identify variables that may have a positive effect on customer satisfaction, taking as a starting point sales control systems, and its direct results identified in each of the performances (behavioral, outcome, unit sales, organizational). Sales activity research presents added challenges regarding studies of any other business area: on the one hand we have the complexity related to the human factor and its variability in terms of motivations and behaviors, but additionally the multidimensionality of the sales activity (tasks in the office and as boundary spanner, knowledge and suitability of the product and the relationship with the customer, etc.) leads to a wide analysis of elements mediating the control system and the results. A deeper knowledge of the mediators between the control systems and the performances will describe the underlying basis that determines the suitability of each control system in each particular situation (Lusch & Jaworski, 1991). -388- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 The AMO framework has been in use for the past 15 years to explain to what extent each of the HRM practices can affect performance, by considering three basic categories: (1) human attributes relevant to perform the sales activity (abilities), (2) factors affecting the will to engage in positive behaviors and attitudes (motivations), and (3) all sets of circumstances that make it possible to participate successfully (opportunities). Figure 1 illustrates the extended framework proposed, that integrates the AMO grouping as a mediator variable, with its antecedent (sales control system) and the sales performances. This proposal is based on the assertion that the impact of each sales managerial system on the variables included in each of the three categories, will be homogeneous, so that instead of assessing each variable’s impact on performance, it may be used the mediator category (abilities, motivations or capabilities) as a reference in studies about sales management. Although we found just one side call to the AMO system in our review on sales control systems (Wang, Dou & Zou, 2012), studies from other organizational areas analysing entailments between human resources practices and employee performance, covering different industry sectors, and management styles (Boselie, 2010; Choi, 2014; Marin-Garcia, 2013), have taken this framework as a basis for understanding the “black-box”, that is, the mechanisms of how control systems impact on the reaching of objectives. Figure 1. Sales Control Systems / Sales Performances Framework Most studies on mediators between control systems and performances have been developed in isolation from one another, not paying much attention to the interactive effects between one mediator and the others (Miao & Evans, 2014). A deeper understanding of how these mediators are influenced by control systems, and how they affect to each other, should be a major issue for sales management research in the coming years. Accordingly, this literature review intends to deepen the knowledge related to sales force management and its consequences, by clustering the mediators between the sales control systems and the sales unit/salesperson performance (outcome and behavioral), using the AMO framework as a grouping approach. This will be an attempt to describe patterns for each of the three groups, and to try to reach a better understanding of the linkages between the sales control system and the performance. In this sense, the paper attempts to clarify inconsistences found when specific single control systems have resulted in different results in previous empirical research. The conceptual development and the description of the methodology in the literature selection follow this introduction. Subsequently, the results will be discussed, concluding with the managerial implications and future research directions. 2. Conceptual development 2.1. Sales control systems Salespeople Control frameworks are based on three management approaches: 1. Organizational Theory suggests that control can be accomplished through two strategies, depending on how the outcomes can be measurable and the tasks are well known and programmable: performance evaluation (behavior or control based), and social control, where members understand and have internalized the organizational goals. -389- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 2. Agency focuses on contracts between a principal (sales manager in this context) and one agent (salesperson) to whom decision-making is delegated, and considers exchanges based in either agent’s performance outcomes or behavior, determining variable or fixed compensation respectively (Anderson & Oliver, 1987; Eisenhardt, 1985; Gencturk & Aulakh, 1995; Krafft, 1999; Lapierre & Skelling, 2005; Mallin & DelVecchio, 2008; Stathakopoulos, 1966). 3. Transaction Cost Theory proposes the question “make versus buy” for the management, seeking the most efficient solution to implement governance mechanisms to reduce salesperson opportunistic behavior (Mallin, O’Donnell & Hu, 2010; Stathakopoulos, 1996; Tremblay, Cote & Balkin, 2003). All three frameworks are complementary and can be found simultaneously in the different salesforce control systems. Building upon these paradigms, scholars have suggested several typologies about sales control systems. This literature review focuses on the following: 2.1.1. Behavior-based, outcome-based and hybrid systems Behavior-based control emphasizes the monitoring, directing, evaluating and rewarding the behaviors of salespeople (the firm assumes risk to gain control), with an orientation to fixed-salary compensation, to direct and control salesperson job inputs, such as personal qualities, activities, or sales strategies. Performance evaluation is more subjective because the manager must decide if and to which degree, inputs generate outputs (Anderson & Oliver, 1987; Cravens et al., 1993; Oliver & Anderson, 1994). Common tools used under this system include frequent group meeting, feedback and coaching from managers, training programs, incentive programs, scheduling and territory management, in an effort to guide salespeople in carrying out their tasks (Bingham & Quigley, 1995; Panagopoulos & Avlonitis, 2008). The effective implementation of behavior-based control requires selecting salespeople who commit to the sales organization, the willingness to cooperate with managers and peers, and to function as team members, as well as devoting attention to salesperson and sales manager training on behavior areas such as product knowledge, selling skills, sales planning and sales support (Piercy, Cravens & Morgan, 1998). Although behavior-based systems result in a higher behavioral performance (Babakus et al., 1996; Cravens et al., 1993), two main weaknesses have been suggested under such controls: (1) a high level of management surveillance implies high monitoring costs, that eventually might exceed the control system’s marginal gain; and (2) the monitorization may lead to standardization of tasks and as a result, reduce the level of sales force discretion (Menguc & Barker, 2003). Outcome-based controls focus on end results and outcomes achieved (Anderson & Oliver, 1987). Salespeople are essentially left alone with minimal monitoring and the supervisory style is "hands off", being compensated in proportion to their measurable results, so that the evaluation system tends to be linked to a few objectively measurable indicators and has a lower salary component and avoiding costs of close personal supervision (Challagalla & Shervani, 1997; Robertson & Anderson, 1993). This system emphasizes participative decisionmaking and increases the discretion of salespeople in achieving the desired outcomes (Menguc & Barker, 2003). Unlike the paternalistic approach of behavior control system, outcome control is administered with an incentivized remuneration plan, where risk is shifted from the firm to the salesperson (Oliver & Anderson, 1994). This system is considered as “the path of least resistance”, but seems to force salespeople to pursue immediate returns, which might harm a long-term organizational strategic orientation (Anderson & Oliver, 1987; Baldauf, Cravens & Grant, 2002). Accordingly, the design of outcome systems represents the challenge of assuring the alignment of salespeople and organizational goals. Outcome and behavior control have been located as the extremes of a continuum with various hybrid levels where management may elect to position its strategy. The continuum idea implies that it exists a gradual increase of one control system component and simultaneously a gradual decrease of the other. The prevailing description of hybrid systems in sales organizations comprises the use of elements of both system types (Oliver & Anderson, 1994; Quigley & Bingham, 1999). In it, it may exist one particular point of the continuum with either combinations of high levels of outcome and behavior control systems, or low levels of both systems, -390- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 representing the same place in the continuum. Darmon and Martin (2011) claim the inaccuracy of such description, becoming one limitation of existing conceptual frameworks: salesforce control systems fail to characterize the total size and content of the control tool kit over some extended period. 2.1.2. Bureaucratic system, clan system, high-control system, and low -control system This typology suggested by Jaworski et al. (1993) contents four control systems based on the extent of reliance on formal (high and low) and informal (high and low) controls. Consequently, bureaucratic systems, with high levels of formal control but low informal controls, contain management-initiated, written controls, with professional and cultural control mechanisms operating in a secondary role. A clan system represents the reverse situation with low formal control, relying exclusively on professional and cultural controls. When both formal and informal controls apply largely, personnel are expected to follow company’s procedures, as well as a collegial work environment and the norms and values of the organization. Lastly, in low control systems, organizations have not implemented neither the formal nor the informal systems. 2.1.3. Activity and capability control, as different behavior control types This typology suggested by Jaworski et al. (1993) contents four control systems based on the extent of reliance on formal (high and low) and informal (high and low) controls. Consequently, bureaucratic systems, with high levels of formal control but low informal controls, contain management-initiated, written controls, with professional and cultural control mechanisms operating in a secondary role. A clan system represents the reverse situation with low formal control, relying exclusively on professional and cultural controls. When both formal and informal controls apply largely, personnel are 2.2. Sales performance An effective control based on a good information in order to facilitate decision making to improve organizational results, determine sales team performance as a central issue in sales management (Piercy et al., 1998). Salesperson performance and contextual factors including the market potential or the level of competition, and corporative factors as the capacitation of the management, are the main drivers of organizational effectiveness (Cravens et al., 1993). Sales control literature considers salesperson performance as a separate construct from sales unit / organization performance: the former comprises behavioral and outcome performances and is a set of individual outcomes, while the later includes outcomes either from a sales unit or from a sales organization. 2.2.1. Salesperson performance Salesperson performance can be measured focusing on objective measures (outcomes), by sales managers’ evaluations on various tasks and attitudes (behaviors), or using salesperson self-evaluations, taking as benchmark other salespeople at the unit (Holmes & Srivastava, 2002). Zallocco, Pullins and Mallin (2009) proposed two new approaches to salesperson performance: the effectiveness/efficiency, and the internal/external orientation (Table 1). Effectiveness comprises measurable outcomes, and skill-based behaviors and capabilities, while efficiency is the ratio of selling output to selling inputs, emphasizing on selling activity behaviors. Alternatively, intraorganizational features used for measuring the performance represent the internal-orientation, whilst the external-orientation pays attention to market-based measurements. The traditional performance evaluation based on sales results has been shifting, as sales strategies increasingly rely on team-oriented selling and building long-term relationships (Piercy et al., 1998). Salespeople performance is a major driver of sales organization performance (Cravens et al., 1993), and entails an assessment of salesperson behavior based on its contribution to organizational objectives (Babakus et al., 1996). Salesperson performance is conceptualized to include behavior and outcome components: Behavioral performance (or in-role behavioral performance) consists of an evaluation of the various activities and strategies salespeople engage in when executing their job responsibilities (Babakus et al., 1996), including -391- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 adaptive selling, teamwork, sales presentations, sales planning, and sales support activities (Piercy et al., 1998), while the outcome performance are the results of salespeople’s activities, that can be largely attributed to them. Traditional measures include sales, market share, new accounts, and customer satisfaction (Grant & Cravens, 1996), and management will place quotas and objectives to adjust outcomes, considering factors affecting outcomes (e.g., market potential, intensity of competition, brand image) that are not controllable by salespeople (Baldauf, Cravens & Piercy, 2001). Interestingly Piercy and Lane (2005) highlight the shift from traditional focus on outcome performance as the main indicator of effectiveness, to a situation that requires the development of closer customer relationships and the implementation of a value-based strategy, where salesperson behavior performance appears to have a higher influence on long-term achievements. Effectiveness (selling outcomes) Efficiency (selling activities) Internally oriented (selling skill, capabilities) Competences: Productivity - Technical knowledge Profitability of sales - Presentation skills Gross margin - Communication skills Time management - Listening skills Cash flow and account management - Supervisory skills Number of calls - Teamwork Number of presentations Quota attainment Time spent in territory Sales volume Sales behavior Mix change (upgrading) Externally oriented (marketplace metrics) Channel feedback/satisfaction Closing ratio Customer feedback/satisfaction - To number of calls Competitive understanding - To number of presentations New accounts introduced to product Sales penetration per account Number of customers Level of interaction with customers Performance relative to opportunities Customers' success/goal attainment Table 1. Salesperson performance measures (Zallocco et al., 2009) 2.2.2. Sales organization / unit effectiveness Sales organization effectiveness is defined as an evaluation of overall organizational results, generated by a sales organization during some specific time frame (Baldauf & Cravens, 1999). Turnover, profits, ROA, and the levels of customer satisfaction are major indicators to measure this construct (Babakus et al., 1996). The salesperson and his/her variables is a partial contributor, and other environmental and organizational variables affect this group outcomes, accordingly salesforce performance should take in account only what falls under the salesperson’s control (Barker, 1999; Verano-Tacoronte & Melián-González, 2008). 2.3. The AMO model Literature on human resources management suggests the existence of major mechanisms that shape employee characteristics that influence performance by affecting: (1) the ability to perform, which includes the knowledge, skills, and abilities; (2) the motivation, which comprises the areas of compensation and incentives, that influence employees’ attitudes by affecting their motivation, commitment, and satisfaction; and (3) the opportunity to perform, or how the involvement and job design may reduce turnover and absenteeism (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, & Kalleberg, 2000; Katou & Budhwar, 2010). The AMO framework in a sales management environment focuses on the salesperson and the sales organizational performances, resulting from the different HR practices (control systems): behavioral, outcome, activity, capability, bureaucratic, clan, high and low. Using one or another system may influence differently on each of the mediators of this framework, considered either abilities, motivations or opportunities, and later on the sales performance, as described in figure 1. Deviations related with employees subjective perceptions about -392- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 HR management practices may imply different mediating values and as a result, different performance levels (Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016; Vermeeren, 2010), making it difficult to find linear results on the scholar's studies. 3. Methodology This work has reviewed studies on management and control systems of the sales forces, published over the last thirty-two years (1985-2016). followig the systematic model of Medina-López, Alfalla-Luque and Marin-Garcia (2011), and Medina-López, Marin-Garcia and Alfalla-Luque (2010), which includes the definition of field of study and the selected period, the selection of sources, the performance of the research and the screening and analysis of results. Initial articles on sales management appear still relevant as theoretical background: Churchill, Ford, Hartley and Walker Jr.'s (1985) and Anderson and Oliver’s (1987) meta-analyses gather all previous relevant knowledge to date regarding sales control systems and propose the main constructs from the generally accepted framework for sales control systems to date. A total of five references from 1985 or before have been later added, in order to complete the conceptual development. The search was performed using as keyword formula: “Management Control” and Sale*, or “Control System*” and “Sale*”, or “Output Control” and “Behavior Control”, on the following engines: Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Business Source Premier (EBSCO). Titles, abstracts, and keywords were used for the initial selection and group-specific criteria were used to screen the results. For example, in Business Source Premier, the research was limited to refereed academic articles. In Science Direct, the registers were restricted to the “Business, Management and Accounting” field. In addition, we limited in Scopus the field to Social Sciences and Humanities and excluded those with keywords that may not match our topic (inventories, mathematical models, computers, stochastic systems, etc.). Finally, we incorporate the 300 first registers of Google Scholar to conclude the initial collection of literature. Following Baldauf et al.’s (2005) criterion, we focused on peer-reviewed journals, because relevant conference proceedings’ is often not available in working papers. Figure 2. Results of each database and later screening Figure 2 represents the selection breakdown: starting from the initial 1394 articles, 303 were dropped as repetitions and 785 were not connected with our topic (false positives) according to one author. The study from abstracts performed by the three authors excluded another group of 50 results, and finally the reading of the remaining group eliminated 142 works. The final selection included 114 studies, focused on topics about sales management and sales teams control systems: theories, systems, mediators, relationships and consequences. Once this articles’ research was performed, another 28 studies cited by these scholars was incorporated to the -393- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 group. As described in table 2, the final group of 142 references emerges from top management, sales and marketing papers. 1985 and before 19861990 19911995 19962000 20012005 20062010 20112014 Total Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 1 2 2 10 3 4 22 Industrial Marketing Management 1 4 1 6 4 16 Journal of Marketing 2 4 5 1 1 1 14 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1 4 4 3 12 Journal of Business Research 1 3 4 1 9 Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 1 5 2 8 Journal of Marketing Research 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 European Journal of Marketing 1 2 1 2 6 International Journal of Research in Marketing 1 3 1 5 The Journal of Marketing Management 1 1 2 Journal of World Business 1 2 3 International Business Review 1 1 2 Journal of International Marketing 2 2 Marketing Letters 1 1 2 Marketing Management 1 1 2 Marketing Science 1 1 2 The Journal of Product Innovation Management 1 1 2 Others 1 3 4 4 8 5 25 Total 5 3 12 25 31 41 25 142 Table 2. Breakdown of journals and years of publishing The codification process has been started by one of the authors by creating a database with the following fields for each of the 142 articles selected: year – author – title – journal – introductory ideas and framework – sample – type of salesforce – unit of analysis – selection criteria – type of market – research instrument – type of control system – variables (mediators) – results – managerial implications – future research. The field of introductory ideas collected all the definitions of the mediators used in table 3. All three authors met later to verify the contents and to integrate similar constructs (i.e. role stress, job tension, and job-related tension; or organizational commitment, and affective commitment) in order to minimize the variables of the system. Later, we expanded a conceptual map in order to visualize the mediators between the control systems and the performances and its possible integration into larger categories (AMO). Variables either not affected by sales control systems or not influencing performances according to the literature, as well as those acting just as moderators –but not mediatorswere excluded of the study. 4. Analysis and results 4.1. Mediators between control systems and sales performance Table 3 summarizes each of the AMO model components’ definitions and discusses some relevant issues that may complete its meaning as mediators in a sales context. Consistency of control system elements Typical inconsistency patterns that combine behavioral and outcome elements, representing models of management with different kinds of adverse effects on sales performance: (1) the “ever-present manager”, (2) the “black hole” with unknowable evaluation criteria for the salesperson, and (3) the “sublime neglect” pattern, who relies on behavioral elements, but does not provide any coaching to salespeople, so improvement becomes harder for the salesperson (Anderson & Onyemah, 2009). Customer relationship strategy Includes the specific characteristics of motivation (both intrinsic and recognition) and the salesperson’s orientation towards planning, sales support and the customer (Grant & Cravens, 1999). -394- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Dysfunctional behaviors Employee activities that further personal interests but are harmful to long-term organizational performance and come regarding outcomes in four forms: gaming, smoothing, focusing and invalid reporting (Jaworski, 1988; Ramaswami, 1996). Emotional exhaustion Lack of vital energy that occurs in highly demanding people-oriented situations, such as boundaryspanning positions and is the first stage of the burnout process, followed by depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment (Babakus, Cravens, Johnston & Moncrief, 1999; Cravens et al., 2004). Entrepreneurial orientation of the sales department Seeking of innovative selling approaches and new business opportunities that constitute strategic advantages by differentiating from competitors (Spillecke & Brettel, 2013). Extrinsic (recognition) motivation Considers respect from supervisors and colleagues, and pursuit from compensation. Therefore, it includes two components: compensation seeking and recognition seeking (Cravens et al., 1993; Miao, Evans & Zou, 2007; Miao & Evans, 2014; Piercy, Cravens & Morgan, 1999). Goal congruence Extent of alignment between sales manager’s and salesperson’s goals (Mallin, O’Donnell et al., 2010). Goal difficulty Degree to which the goals assigned by a supervisor are attainable (Fang, Evans & Zou, 2005). Goal participation Degree of involvement of salespeople in setting the goals (Fang et al., 2005). Goal specificity Extent to which the goals are clearly defined by a supervisor (Fang et al., 2005). Idea transfer Relates the diffusion of original ideas or knowledge from the salesperson to other persons in the organization, as well as the assimilation of organizational knowledge, and newly diffusion to others, as a process that improves the firm’s product and additional service quality (Flaherty & Pappas, 2012). Information asymmetry Extent to which a subordinate has more information than the supervisor (Jaworski & MacInnis, 1989; Ramaswami, Srinivasan, & Gorton, 1997). Intrinsic motivation Orientation to challenge and enjoyment when performing the job, which results in a sense of accomplishment, self-actualization, and self-worth (Mallin, Asree, Koh & Hu, 2010). Accordingly, this type of motivation includes two components: challenge seeking and task enjoyment (Miao et al., 2007). Job satisfaction Degree to which an employee is satisfied or happy with the job (Jaworski et al., 1993) including all characteristics of the job and its environment, which salespeople find rewarding, fulfilling and satisfying, or frustrating and unsatisfying (Grant, Cravens, Low, & Moncrief, 2001). Job tension / role stress / job related tension Extent to which workers are bothered by work features, such as job evaluations and achievement of performance goals (Challagalla & Shervani, 1997; Lusch & Jaworski, 1991). Major stressors are: role ambiguity and role conflict. Learning / performance orientation A learning orientation implies a strong desire to improve and master the selling skills and abilities continually, while a performance orientation seeks obtaining extrinsic rewards from supervisors by a successful outcome, what indeed is likely to lead to short-term payoffs (Kohli, Shervani & Challagalla, 1998). Opportunistic behaviors Involve withholding or distorting information, shrinking responsibilities, cheating, or other subtle forms of dishonest behaviors (Atuahene-Gima & Li, 2002). Organizational citizenship behavior Represents the voluntary commitment from individuals, embodied in discretionary activities or attitudes important for the effective and successful functioning of the organization, which are not related to the contractual tasks and therefore are not directly or explicitly rewarded in the organization’s formal reward system (Piercy, Low & Cravens, 2004a; Piercy, Cravens, Lane & Vorhies 2006). Organizational commitment, or affective commitment Strength of a salesperson’s involvement and loyalty to the organization (Grant & Cravens, 1996), This construct was termed affective commitment by Joshi & Randall (2001) referring to the development of identification by the salesperson with the organization, and the feeling that his/her relationship with the organization is a “satisfying self-defining relationship”. Organizational customer orientation Salesperson’s perception of the extent to which the sales organization promotes and engages in activities aimed at providing quality services and satisfaction to the customer (Evans, Landry, Li, & Zou 2007). Problem solving Salesperson’s effort to understand the customer’s goals and objectives, uncover their needs, and offer unique solutions to specific customer problems (Wang et al., 2012). Risk aversion Basically, refers in this study to income stability. Role ambiguity Occurs when an employee lacks salient information needed to effectively enact his or her role (Hartline & Ferrell, 1996). Role conflict Extent to which role expectations defined by managers are incongruent with the role orientation of the employee (Jaworski et al., 1993). Sales innovativeness Extent to which salespeople perceive an organization as demonstrating flexibility and willingness to accept new ways of problem solving with regard to the sales function (Evans et al., 2007). -395- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 managers seek end-results, an outcome control plus moderately hard, nonspecific objectives would be pertinent, while capability and activity control, with easy, generic goals, with high levels of participation, should be adopted when behavioral performance is the priority of management. As a last implication, managers who prefer activity control should assign useful and challenging activity goals, involving the salesperson in the process, in order to define the optimal level of hardness. If the goals are highly challenging, higher fixed salary is likely to increase the motivation. Since motivation and behavioral performance are not positively influenced by outcome control, managers should assess behavioral control as a means to enhance such enablers of long-term outcome performance (Miao et al., 2007). In view of their impact on salespeople behavioral performance, sales manager control competences play a major role in a market orientation corporate strategy. Best managers guide sales teams in delivering higher customer value, enhancing satisfaction and long-term sales, which justifies the importance of recruiting, promoting and training managers to display superior competences (Piercy et al., 2009). Finally, the AMO grouping in a sales department context, suggests new challenges for scholars of this field. Most research on sales management is cross-sectional, which involves the analysis of one specific dyad of sales manager and salesperson, determined by concrete momentary circumstances. Nevertheless, studies about how the control system affects each mediator over time, would provide a more complete and accurate information. Therefore, longitudinal studies are frequently a means to use dynamic data that confirm the causal mechanisms proposed on each mediator requested (Ahearne, Jelinek & Jones, 2007; Atuahene-Gima & Li 2006; Baldauf et al., 2002; Darmon & Martin 2011; Homburg, Bornemann, & Kretzner, 2014; Jones, Dixon, Chonko & Cannon, 2005; Joshi & Randall 2001; Lo, Ghosh & Lafontaine, 2011; Menguc & Barker 2003; Miao & Evans 2014; Murphi & Li 2012; Onyemah 2009; Onyemah & Anderson 2009; Panagopoulos & Avlonitis 2010; Pappas & Flaherty 2008; Piercy et al., 2012; Sarin, Challagalla & Kohli, 2012; Verano-Tacoronte & Melián-González 2008). Furthermore, Wright and Nishii (2007) suggested multi-level analysis between the different corporate levels (organizational, team and individual) as a means to overcome the limitations of a linear study between the management policies and the performances, even when mediating variables are included. Research on this framework applied to the salesforce management would clarify the mechanisms that generate the best performances, and should include how the sales general policies, the team management and the individual behavior and perceptions impact: (1) between them, (2) on the mediators described in this study, and (3) on the outcomes at each level (organizational, team and individual). Similarly, the influence of the company’s strategy and objectives, on the sales organization (mediators and moderators) at the sales salesperson level may address to new evidences, to better explain how each type of control system might affect the salesperson and the sales organization performances. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References Agarwal, S. (1999). Impact of job formalization and administrative controls on attitudes of industrial salespersons. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(4), 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00026-1 Ahearne, M., Jelinek, R., & Jones, E. (2007). Examining the effect of salesperson service behavior in a competitive context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 603-616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-006-0013-1 Anderson, E., & Oliver, R.L. (1987). Perspectives on Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems. Journal of Marketing, 51, 76-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251249 -402- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Anderson, E., & Onyemah, V. (2006). How Right Should the Customer Be? (cover story). Harvard Business Review, 84(7-8), 58-67. Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H.Y. (2006). The effects of formal controls on supervisee trust in the manager in new product selling: Evidence from young and inexperienced salespeople in China. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(4), 342-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00206.x Atuahene-Gima, K., & Li, H.Y. (2002). When does trust matter? Antecedents and contingent effects of supervisee trust on performance in selling new products in China and the United States. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 61-81. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.61.18501 Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2007). Performance implications of the direct and moderating effects of centralization and formalization on customer orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1022-1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.02.010 Avlonitis, G.J., & Panagopoulos, N.G. (2007). Exploring the influence of sales management practices on the industrial salesperson: A multi-source hierarchical linear modeling approach. Journal of Business Research, 60(7), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.011 Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W., Grant, K., Ingram, T.N., & LaForge, R.W. (1996). Investigating the relationships among sales, management control, sales territory design, salesperson performance, and sales organization effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 345-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S01678116(96)00016-X Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W., Johnston, M., & Moncrief, W.C. (1999). The role of emotional exhaustion in sales force attitude and behavior relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(1), 58-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399271005 Bainbridge, H. (2015). Devolving people management to the line: How different rationales for devolution influence people management effectiveness. Personnel Review, 44(6), 847-865. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-102013-0193 Baldauf, A., & Cravens, D.W. (1999). Improving the effectiveness of field sales organizations: a European perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(1), 63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00023-6 Baldauf, A., Cravens, D.W., & Grant, K. (2002). Consequences of sales management control in field sales organizations: a cross-national perspective. International Business Review, 11(5), 577-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-5931(02)00038-0 Baldauf, A., Cravens, D.W., & Piercy, N.F. (2005). Sales management control research—synthesis and an agenda for future research. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(1), 7-26. Baldauf, A., Cravens, D.W., & Piercy, N.F. (2001). Examining business strategy, sales management, and salesperson antecedents of sales organization effectiveness. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21(2), 109-122. Barker, A.T. (1999). Benchmarks of successful salesforce performance. Canadian Journal of Administrative SciencesRevue Canadienne Des Sciences De L’Administration, 16(2), 95-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.19364490.1999.tb00616.x Bingham Jr, F.G., & Quigley Jr, C.J. (1995). The effect of gender on sales managers’ and salespeople’s perceptions of sales force control tools. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(2), 62-70. Boselie, P. (2010). High performance work practices in the health care sector: a Dutch case study. International Journal of Manpower, 31(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721011031685 Bradford, K., Brown, S., Ganesan, S., Hunter, G., Onyemah, V., Palmatier, R., Rouziès, D., Spiro, R., Sujan, H., & Weitz, B. (2010). The embedded sales force: Connecting buying and selling organizations. Marketing Letters, 21(3), 239-253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9106-1 -403- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Challagalla, G.N., & Shervani, T.A. (1996). Dimensions and Types of Supervisory Control: Effects on Salesperson Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60, 89-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251890 Challagalla, G.N., & Shervani, T.A. (1997). A measurement model of the dimensions and types of output and behavior control: An empirical test in a salesforce context. Journal of Business Research, 39(3), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00195-6 Choi, J.-H. (2014). The HR–performance link using two differently measured HR practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(3), 370-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12009 Churchill Jr., G.A., Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W., & Walker Jr., O.C. (1985). The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 22, 103-118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151357 Cravens, D.W., Ingram, T.N., LaForge, R.W., & Young, C.E. (1993). Behavior-based and outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252218 Cravens, D.W., Lassk, F.G., Low, G.S., Marshall, G.W., & Moncrief, W.C. (2004). Formal and informal management control combinations in sales organizations - The impact on salesperson consequences. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 241-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00322-3 Darmon, R.Y., & Martin, X.C. (2011). A new conceptual framework of sales force control systems. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 31(3), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134310307 Eisenhardt, K.M. (1985). Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches. Management Science, 31(2), 134-149. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.2.134 Evans, K.R., Landry, T.D., Li, P.-C., Zou, S., (2007). How sales controls affect job-related outcomes: the role of organizational sales-related psychological climate perceptions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35, 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0033-5 Fang, E., Evans, K.R., & Zou, S.M. (2005). The moderating effect of goal-setting characteristics on the sales control systems-job performance relationship. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1214-1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.03.006 Flaherty, K.E., & Pappas, J.M. (2012). Control mechanisms, idea transfer, and performance in sales organizations. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 841-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.10.008 Flaherty, K.E., Pappas, J.M., & Allison, L. (2014). The influence of an optimal control system on salesperson performance and championing. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.10.003 Gencturk, E.F., & Aulakh, P.S. (1995). The Use of Process and Output Controls in Foreign Markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4), 755-786. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490819 Grant, K., & Cravens, D.W. (1999). Examining the antecedents of sales organization effectiveness: An Australian study. European Journal of Marketing, 33(9-10), 945-957. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910285878 Grant, K., & Cravens, D.W. (1996). Examining sales force performance in organizations that use behavior-based sales management processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(5), 361-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/00198501(96)00038-7 Grant, K., Cravens, D.W., Low, G.S., & Moncrief, W.C. (2001). The role of satisfaction with territory design on the motivation, attitudes, and work outcomes of salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994533 Hartline, M.D., & Ferrell, O.C. (1996). The Management of Customer-Contact Service Employees: An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 52-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251901 Holmes, T.L., & Srivastava, R. (2002). Effects of job perceptions on job behaviors: Implications for sales performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00158-4 -404- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Homburg, C., Bornemann, T., & Kretzer, M. (2014). Delusive perception-antecedents and consequences of salespeople’s misperception of customer commitment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(2), 137153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0347-4 Jaworski, B.J. (1988). Toward a Theory of Marketing Control: Environmental Context, Control Types, and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251447 Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854 Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1991). Supervisory feedback: Alternative types and their impact on salespeople’s performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 190-201. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172807 Jaworski, B.J., & MacInnis, D.J. (1989). Marketing jobs and management controls: toward a framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(4), 406-419. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172761 Jaworski, B.J., Stathakopoulos, V., & Krishnan, H.S. (1993). Control combinations in marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 57-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252057 Jones, E., Dixon, A.L., Chonko, L.B., & Cannon, J.P. (2005). Key accounts and team selling: a review, framework, and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(2), 181-198. Joshi, A.W., & Randall, S. (2001). The indirect effects of organizational controls on salesperson performance and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00119-8 Katou, A.A., & Budhwar, P.S. (2010). Causal relationship between HRM policies and organisational performance: Evidence from the Greek manufacturing sector. European Management Journal, 28(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.06.001 Kohli, A.K., Shervani, T.A., & Challagalla, G.N. (1998). Learning and performance orientation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(2), 263-274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151853 Krafft, M. (1999). An empirical investigation of the antecedents of sales force control systems. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 120-134. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251779 Lapierre, J., & Skelling, J. (2005). Salesforce control system in high-tech contexts: do environment and industry matter? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(6), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620510618138 Le Bon, J., & Merunka, D. (2006). The impact of individual and managerial factors on salespeople’s contribution to marketing intelligence activities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(4), 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.10.002 Lo, D., Ghosh, M., & Lafontaine, F. (2011). The Incentive and Selection Roles of Sales Force Compensation Contracts. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(4), 781-798. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.4.781 Lusch, R.F., & Jaworski, B.J. (1991). Management controls, role stress, and retail store manager performance. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 397-419. Madhani, P.M. (2015). Managing Salesforce Performance Behavior Versus Outcome Measures. Compensation & Benefits Review, 47(2), 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368715581959 Mallin, M.L., Asree, S., Koh, A.C., & Hu, M.Y. (2010). Antecedents to managerial trust and sales control in Malaysian salesforce. International Business Review, 19(3), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.12.009 Mallin, M.L., & DelVecchio, S.K. (2008). Salesforce automation tool selectivity: an agency theory perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(7), 486-495. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620810901248 -405- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Mallin, M.L., O’Donnell, E., & Hu, M.Y. (2010). The role of uncertainty and sales control in the development of sales manager trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(1), 30-42. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011009137 Mallin, M.L., & Pullins, E.B. (2009). The moderating effect of control systems on the relationship between commission and salesperson intrinsic motivation in a customer oriented environment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 769-777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.03.004 Marin-Garcia, J.A. (2013). What do we know about the relationship between High Involvement Work Practices and Performance. WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 4(2), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v4i2.1552 Marin-Garcia, J.A., & Tomas, J.M. (2016). Deconstructing AMO framework: a systematic review. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 1040-1087. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.838 Medina-López, C., Alfalla Luque, R., & Marín García, J.A. (2011). La investigación en docencia en dirección de operaciones: tendencias y retos. Intangible Capital, 7(2), 507-548. https://doi.org/10.3926º/ic.279 Medina-López, C., Marín-García, J.A., & Alfalla-Luque, R. (2010). Una propuesta metodológica para la realización de búsquedas sistemáticas de bibliografía (A methodological proposal for the systematic literature review). WPOM-Working Papers on Operations Management, 1(2), 13-30. https://doi.org/10.4995/wpom.v1i2.786 Menguc, B., & Tansu Barker, A. (2003). The performance effects of outcome-based incentive pay plans on sales organizations: a contextual analysis. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23(4), 341-358. Miao, C.F., & Evans, K.R. (2014). Motivating industrial salesforce with sales control systems: an interactive perspective. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1233-1242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.04.007 Miao, C.F., & Evans, K.R. (2013). The interactive effects of sales control systems on salesperson performance: a job demands-resources perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 73-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0315-4 Miao, C.F., & Evans, K.R. (2012). Effects of formal sales control systems: A combinatory perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(2), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.09.002 Miao, C.F., Evans, K.R., & Zou, S. (2007). The role of salesperson motivation in sales control systems - Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation revisited. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 417-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.12.005 Oliver, R.L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the consequences of behavior-and outcome-based sales control systems. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251916 Onyemah, V. (2009). The effects of coaching on salespeople’s attitudes and behaviors A contingency approach. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7-8), 938-960. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910961461 Onyemah, V., & Anderson, E. (2009). Inconsistencies among the constitutive elements of a sales force control system: Test of a configuration theory–based performance prediction. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(1), 9-24. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134290101 Onyemah, V., Rouzies, D., & Panagopoulos, N.G. (2010). How HRM control affects boundary-spanning employees’ behavioural strategies and satisfaction: The moderating impact of cultural performance orientation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(11), 1951-1975. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.505096 Ozcelik, G., & Uyargil, C. (2015). A conceptual framework for line managers’ HRM implementation effectiveness: integrating social context and AMO theories. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 4(2), 289301. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2015211620 -406- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Panagopoulos, N., & Dimitriadis, S. (2009). Transformational leadership as a mediator of the relationship between behavior-based control and salespeople’s key outcomes An initial investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7-8), 1008-1031. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910961498 Panagopoulos, N.G., & Avlonitis, G.J. (2010). Performance implications of sales strategy: The moderating effects of leadership and environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(1), 46-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.11.001 Panagopoulos, N.G., & Avlonitis, G.J. (2008). Sales force control systems: A review of measurement practices and proposed scale refinements. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28(4), 365-385. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134280403 Pappas, J.M., & Flaherty, K.E. (2008). The effect of trust on customer contact personnel strategic behavior and sales performance in a service environment. Journal of Business Research, 61(9), 894-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.017 Pettijohn, C., Pettijohn, L.S., Taylor, A.J., & Keillor, B.D. (2001). Are performance appraisals a bureaucratic exercise or can they be used to enhance sales-force satisfaction and commitment? Psychology & Marketing, 18(4), 337-364. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1011 Piercy, N.F. (2006). The strategic sales organization. The Marketing Review, 6(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934706776861564 Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., & Lane, N. (2012). Sales manager behavior-based control and salesperson performance: The effects of manager control competencies and organizational citizenship behavior. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(1), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679200101 Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., & Lane, N. (2009). Sales management control level and competencies: Antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(4), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.03.002 Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., Lane, N., & Vorhies, D.W. (2006). Driving organizational citizenship behaviors and salesperson in-role behavior performance: The role of management control and perceived organizational support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 244-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305280532 Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., & Morgan, N.A. (1999). Relationships between sales management control, territory design, salesforce performance and sales organization effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 10(5), 95111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00113 Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., & Morgan, N.A. (1998). Salesforce performance and behaviour-based management processes in business-to-business sales organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 32(1), 79-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810197480 Piercy, N.F., & Lane, N. (2005). Strategic imperatives for transformation in the conventional sales organization. Journal of Change Management, 5(3), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500175094 Piercy, N.F., Low, G.S., & Cravens, D.W. (2004a). Consequences of sales management’s behaviorand compensation-based control strategies in developing countries. Journal of International Marketing, 12(3), 30– 57. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.12.3.30.38102 Piercy, N.F., Low, G.S., & Cravens, D.W. (2004b). Examining the effectiveness of sales management control practices in developing countries. Journal of World Business, 39(3), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2004.04.005 Quigley Jr, C.J., & Bingham Jr, F.G. (1999). Sales force control system outcomes: a comparasion of the beliefs of salespeople and sales managers. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(2), 73-83. -407- Intangible Capital – https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.1222 Ramaswami, S.N. (2002). Influence of control systems on opportunistic behaviors of salespeople: A test of gender differences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22(3), 173-188. Ramaswami, S.N. (1996). Marketing controls and dysfunctional employee behaviors: a test of traditional and contingency theory postulates. The Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 105-120. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251934 Ramaswami, S.N., Srinivasan, S.S., & Gorton, S.A. (1997). Information asymmetry between salesperson and supervisor: postulates from agency and social exchange theories. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17(3), 29-50. Robertson, D.C., & Anderson, E. (1993). Control System and Task Environment Effects on Ethical Judgment: An Exploratory Study of Industrial Salespeople. Organization Science, 4(4), 617-644. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.617 Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A.K. (2012). Implementing Changes in Marketing Strategy: The Role of Perceived Outcomeand Process-Oriented Supervisory Actions. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 564-580. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.07.0466 Schwepker Jr, C.H., & Good, D.J. (2004). Marketing control and sales force customer orientation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24(3), 167-179. Spillecke, S.B., & Brettel, M. (2013). The impact of sales management controls on the entrepreneurial orientation of the sales department. European Management Journal, 31(4), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.07.002 Stathakopoulos, V. (1996). Sales force control: A synthesis of three theories. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(2), 1-12. Tremblay, M., Cote, J., & Balkin, D.B. (2003). Explaining sales pay strategy using agency, transaction cost and resource dependence theories. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1651-1682. https://doi.org/10.1111/14676486.00395 Verano-Tacoronte, D., & Melian-Gonzalez, S. (2008). Human resources control systems and performance: the role of uncertainty and risk propensity. International Journal of Manpower, 29(2), 161-187. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437720810872712 Vermeeren, B. (2010). Diversity in HRM Implementation and its Effect on Performance. Proceedings of 32nd EGPA Annual Conference Toulouse, 1–25. Wachner, T., Plouffe, C.R., & Gregoire, Y. (2009). SOCO’s impact on individual sales performance: The integration of selling skills as a missing link. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(1), 32-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.11.003 Wang, G., Dou, W., & Zhou, N. (2012). The interactive effects of sales force controls on salespeople behaviors and customer outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(2), 225-243. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320204 Wright, P.M., & Nishii, L.H. (2007). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels of analysis. CAHRS-Working Paper Series, 468, 1-24. Zallocco, R., Pullins, E.B., & Mallin, M.L. (2009). A re-examination of B2B sales performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(8), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620910999466 Intangible Capital, 2018 (www.intangiblecapital.org) Article's contents are provided on an Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 Creative commons International License. Readers are allowed to copy, distribute and communicate article's contents, provided the author's and Intangible Capital's names are included. It must not be used for commercial purposes. To see the complete license contents, please visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. -408-