“Coopetition” in the presence of team and individual incentives: Evidence from the advice network of a sales organization

Homburg, Christian; Schyma (née Morguet), Theresa R.; Hohenberg, Sebastian; Atefi, Yashar; Ruhnau, Robin-Christopher M. Article — Published Version “Coopetition” in the presence of team and individual incentives: Evidence from the advice network of a sales organization Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Homburg, Christian; Schyma (née Morguet), Theresa R.; Hohenberg, Sebastian; Atefi, Yashar; Ruhnau, Robin-Christopher M. (2023) : “Coopetition” in the presence of team and individual incentives: Evidence from the advice network of a sales organization, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, ISSN 1552-7824, Springer US, New York, NY, Vol. 52, Iss. 2, pp. 306-328, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00939-1 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/307068 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00939-1 ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH “Coopetition” inthepresence ofteam andindividual incentives: Evidence fromtheadvice network ofasales organization ChristianHomburg1,2 · TheresaR.Schyma(néeMorguet)3· SebastianHohenberg4,5 · YasharAtefi6 · Robin‑ChristopherM.Ruhnau7 Received: 3 November 2020 / Accepted: 24 March 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Team and individual incentives are ubiquitous in sales, but little is known about their impact on collaboration when they are applied simultaneously. The presence of both types of incentives creates a “coopetitive” environment, where forces of collaboration and competition coexist. We examine how such environments impact the likelihood (Study 1) and the effectiveness (Study 2) of collaboration in the form of advice exchange. Exponential random graph modeling (ERGM) of network data of 540 salespeople reveals that individual incentives promote advice seeking but discourage advice giving, and team incentives stimulate advice giving but reduce advice seeking (Study 1). We also find that the effectiveness of advice depends on advice givers (Study 2). In particular, when advice givers have diverse team incentives, the advice is more effective and the need for additional advice is reduced, but when advice givers have diverse individual incentives, the advice is less effective and additional advice helps. Keywords Advice seeking· Advice giving· Sales· Social network analysis· Exponential random graph models· Team incentives· Individual incentives Seeking work-related advice from colleagues is one of the primary means to resolve uncertainties in the workplace and improve job performance (Carucci, 2020). According to a recent report, U.S. employees spend an average of 5.3hours a week seeking advice from coworkers (Panopto, 2018). The need for advice exchange is particularly critical in the sales profession due to the many uncertainties involved in the selling process. For example, studies show that the impact of salespeople’s “network performance”—or how much they give to or take from their peers—on business unit profitability has increased significantly over the past decades, while the impact of their individual performance has decreased (Adamson etal., 2014). Despite this growing need, advice exchange in a sales context is fraught with complexities that are less prevalent in other settings. In particular, sales organizations have a long Son Lam served as Area Editor for this article. * Christian Homburg christian.hombur[email protected] Theresa R. Schyma (née Morguet) theresa.sch[email protected] Sebastian Hohenberg [email protected] Yashar Atefi yashar[email protected] Robin-Christopher M. Ruhnau [email protected] 1 Marketing Department, University ofMannheim, 68131Mannheim, Germany 2 Alliance Manchester Business School, ManchesterM139SS, UK 3 Siemens Advanta Consulting, Siemens AG, Werner-Von-Siemens-Str. 1, 80333Munich, Germany 4 University ofMünster, 48149Münster, Germany 5 Department ofMarketing, McCombs School ofBusiness, University ofTexas atAustin, Austin, TX78712, USA 6 Department ofMarketing, Daniels College ofBusiness, University ofDenver, 2101 S. University Blvd., CO80208-8921Denver, USA 7 WFI – Ingolstadt School ofManagement, Catholic University ofEichstätt-Ingolstadt, Auf der Schanz 49, 85049Ingolstadt, Germany / Published online: 3 May 2023 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 tradition of stimulating rivalry among salespeople through various individual incentives and competition-inducing practices, such as sales contests (Kalra & Shi, 2001), bench programs (Boichuk etal., 2019), or rewards and bonuses for salespeople at different performance levels (Steenburgh & Ahearne, 2012). While competitive incentives remain prevalent, many sales organizations increasingly feel the need to foster more collaboration among their salespeople as well (Greene, 2020). WorldatWork, the leading global association for sales compensation and rewards, reports that 83% of sales organizations that completed its surveys highly valued team incentives that promote collaboration among salespeople (Thompson, 2018). The need for collaboration in a sales setting, where in most cases, salespeople compete for individual incentives, creates a tension that has not been studied before. The literature relevant to our work appears in four main streams: (1) social network studies in sales, (2) advice exchange research, which appears in the management, communication, and small-group disciplines, (3) literature on team and individual incentives, and (4) literature on “coopetition” (Table1). These literature streams demonstrate the importance of advice networks as collaborative social capital for improving performance (stream one), offer more nuanced insights into factors that influence the effectiveness of advice exchange (stream two), compare team incentives and individual incentives in terms of their impact on employee effort (stream three), and study coopetition among firms or interfunctional units (stream four). However, as Table1 further shows, knowledge is scarce as to how the simultaneous presence of team and individual incentives impacts the likelihood and effectiveness of collaboration, in the form of advice exchange, among salespeople. In this paper, we bridge these gaps. In particular, we explore how team and individual incentives drive both advice seeking and advice giving and how the composition of the group of advice givers, in terms of variation in team and individual incentives, influences the effectiveness of advice in improving performance. To do so, we collected data on 540 salespeople at a leading business-to-business (B2B) company. Using an exponential random graph model (ERGM; Lusher etal., 2013), we first examine determinants of advice exchange (Study 1). The results reveal that the baseline propensity for an advice exchange is low, advice seeking is likely to be reciprocated, and popular advice givers as well as active advice seekers are less likely to emerge in a setting with both team and individual incentives. Moreover, the results show that team and individual incentives differentially promote advice exchange. In particular, salespeople for whom the importance of individual incentives is more salient are more likely to seek advice but less likely to give advice. By contrast, the perceived importance of team incentives drives salespeople to give advice more often, but these individuals are less likely to seek advice from their peers. Drawing from the literature on team and individual incentives, we argue that individual incentives motivate salespeople to improve but, at the same time, heighten competition, which explains why such incentives promote advice seeking (improvement motive) but discourage advice giving (competition motive). Moreover, team incentives both underscore the importance of and trigger the reliance on the collective effort of the team (Karau & Williams, 1993), which explains why such incentives encourage advice giving (to ensure teammates put in their share of effort) but decrease the likelihood of advice seeking (reduced focus on own effort). Building on the literature on advice exchange, we hypothesize that the effectiveness of advice should depend on whom salespeople seek advice from and how diverse advice givers’ perspectives are (Study 2). Not only do team incentives promote advice giving, but the advice itself is also likely to be quite helpful (Friebel etal., 2017; Harvey & Fischer, 1997). Conversely, advice given under high individual incentives is likely to be insufficient, self-interested, and even misleading, due to competitive motives (Hogan, 2014). However, what determines whether cooperative or competitive motives can help or hurt the effectiveness of the advice depends on the extent to which advice givers have diverse perspectives. When advice comes from people with perspectives similar to each other, their advice is more likely to be discounted because the same advice will go against one’s own prejudgment and be adapted to a greater extent (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006; Bonaccio & Paik, 2018; Yaniv, 2004). However, when the perspectives of advice seekers seem diverse, people tend to aggregate the opinions they receive and put all advice under a new light (i.e., the “wisdom-of-the-crowd” phenomenon; Budescu & Rantilla, 2000; Garvin & Margolis, 2015; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007). Therefore, the diversity of advice givers’ perspectives increases the chance of advice utilization and has a stronger influence on performance (Bonaccio & Paik, 2018; Budescu & Rantilla, 2000; Garvin & Margolis, 2015; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007). We hypothesize that when advice givers report a diverse emphasis placed on team incentives in their units, the averaging of their opinions will yield a net positive effect, with the helpful advice of those with a reported high emphasis on team incentives included in forming the wisdom of the crowd. Therefore, we theorize that such diversity will positively impact performance. The need to ask for additional advice is reduced in these situations, as additional advice will likely drive down the net positive effect in the aggregation of opinions. In the opposite direction, we hypothesize that the diversity in advice givers’ reported emphasis on individual incentives in their units will have a net negative effect, due to the potentially self-interested or misleading advice of those with 307Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 Table 1 Literature snapshot Literature group Studies Field Study context Methodological approach Variation in advice quality accounted for? Network/ tie formation studied? Formal incentives studied? Collaboration/advice exchange studied? Mixed incentives studied? Focus of studies Social networks in sales Ahearne etal. (2013); Bolander etal. (2015); Gonzalez etal. (2014); Hayati etal. (2018) Marketing Sales Field study ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ Impact of salesperson’s position within the network on performance Advice exchange Budescu and Rantilla (2000); Dalal and Bonaccio (2010); Harvey and Fischer (1997); Johnson etal. (2001); MacGeorge etal. (2016); Soll and Larrick (2009); (2009); Yaniv (2004) Small group/ Communication/Management Groups Lab experiments ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ Factors impacting advice taking and advice utilization Coopetition Tsai (2002); Ho and Ganesan (2013); Luo etal. (2006); Mathias etal. (2018); Danielson (2002) Strategy/Marketing Firms/crossfunctional units Survey, lab experiments, game theory models ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ Coopetition between crossfunctional units or firms Team and individual incentives Chen and Chung (2021); Chen and Lim (2013), (2017); Lim and Chen (2014) Marketing Sales Lab experiments (behavioral economics) ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ Factors affecting the effectiveness of team incentives and exerted effort Bandiera etal. (2013); Barnes etal. (2011); Beersma etal. (2003); Friebel etal. (2017); Karau and Williams (1993) Management/ Economics Work groups Lab experiments, field studies ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ (exception: Barnes etal., 2011) Comparison of team and individual incentives regarding output, effort, social loafing 308 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 a reported high emphasis on individual incentives counted in the aggregate opinion. Seeking advice from more colleagues will, in this case, be beneficial because it will help balance the net negative average. Overall, we provide evidence on the impact of the simultaneous usage of team and individual incentives and their opposing effects on the likelihood of advice exchange and the effectiveness of advice seeking. Sales leaders who employ team incentives with the hope of facilitating collaboration should be aware that the presence of both team and individual incentives creates a complex dynamic with opposing forces of collaboration and competition. We contribute to the social network in sales literature, which (a) has not examined factors affecting the formation of advice exchange relationships and (b) assumes equal value among advice-seeking relationships, to the management, small group, and communication research on advice, which (c) is mostly experimental and (d) has not investigated the influence of formal incentive systems on advice exchange, to the incentive literature, which (e) has mostly analyzed effort exertion rather than collaboration, (d) with few exceptions has not studied mixed incentive plans (both team and individual incentives), and (f) has not examined the “coopetition” arising due to the interplay between team and individual incentives, and to the literature on coopetition, which (g) has mostly focused on firms or cross-functional units, but not individuals or relationships among social actors. Table1 summarizes our contribution to these streams of research. Background Four broad research streams are related to our investigation: research on social networks in sales, research on advice exchange, which mainly appears in the management, smallgroup, and communication disciplines, the literature on team and individual incentives, which is covered across marketing, economics, and management disciplines, and the literature on coopetition. In the following paragraphs, we first review previous research on social networks in sales, then present ERGMs as an advanced class of social network analyses, and finally proceed with the presentation of the other three literature streams. Literature onsocial networks insales Following the interest in applying social network analysis to various marketing problems in the past two decades (for a review, see Van den Bulte & Wuyts, 2007), sales researchers have examined the impact of social networks on the performance of salespeople and sales organizations (Ahearne etal., 2013; Bolander etal., 2015; Gonzalez etal., 2014; Hayati etal., 2018). What all these studies Table 1 (continued) Literature group Studies Field Study context Methodological approach Variation in advice quality accounted for? Network/ tie formation studied? Formal incentives studied? Collaboration/advice exchange studied? Mixed incentives studied? Focus of studies Current study – Marketing Sales Field study ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Advice exchange in the presence of team and individual incentives For brevity: a) only representative papers are shown, and similar papers to the ones already mentioned are excluded; b) citations that do not appear in the main manuscript are referenced at the end of the Web Appendix 309Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 have in common is a structural assessment of how the shape of a network and a salesperson’s position within that network can influence individual and organizational performance. For example, sales scholars have investigated how the density of a network, the presence of structural holes that could offer brokerage opportunities to boundary-spanning actors, and the centrality of an actor can affect both the organizational outcomes and the actor’s (salesperson or sales manager) performance (e.g., Ahearne etal., 2013; Bolander etal., 2015). Although these social network studies provide valuable insights into the influence of network factors on performance, they suffer from two limitations (Table1). First, they draw their insights from the given shape of a particular social network. However, it is not clear how organizations or actors can move toward the studied network shape or position within the network so that they can accrue the resulting benefits that the studies delineate. For example, while a dense social network, one with a large number of actors connected with each other, can facilitate idea generation and innovation (Brass & Borgatti, 2020; Kilduff & Tsai, 2003), the factors that contribute to the emergence of a dense network remain unclear. Similarly, although studies have shown that occupying certain network positions, such as a central or a bridging position, can endow actors with power or novel information (e.g., Bolander etal., 2015; Brass & Burkhardt, 1993), it is unclear how prevalent such positions are in certain jobs or industries or what factors influence the formation of ties in ways that facilitate the appearance of these positions in a network. This shortcoming is the focus of advanced social network analyses related to earlier work in 1980-90s on p* graph (e.g., Wasserman & Pattison, 1996)—that is: ERGMs (Lusher etal., 2013), which investigate factors associated with the formation and evolution of relationship ties and, in a broader sense, the likelihood of the emergence of certain structures within a network. The second limitation of the studies that use these models is that they seem to assume that all ties are equally important or useful, as the entire analysis of the network depends on how different actors are connected to each other (Brass & Borgatti, 2020). In practice, however, connections between different people might be of differing values. For example, in advice-seeking networks, certain people may provide less valuable or even misleading advice, while others may go out of their way to help the advice seeker (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Likewise, some advice seekers might discount the advice they receive, whereas others better utilize advice (Bonaccio & Paik, 2018). Therefore, predicting certain outcomes by only considering the shape of the advice network of salespeople is difficult unless one assumes that all connections between actors are of similar value. ERGMs ERGMs (e.g., Park etal., 2020) are an advanced class of social network analyses that address the first shortcoming related to traditional social networks (i.e., the question of what drives tie formation in the first place). In particular, ERGMs are tie-based models that researchers employ to understand how social network ties arise (Robins & Lusher, 2013). The main difference between ERGMs and other statistical methods, such as logistic regression on the likelihood of tie formation, is the removal of the assumption that observations (i.e., actors, individuals) must be independent of each other (Contractor etal., 2006), which is the basis of classical regression analysis. ERGMs explicitly account for multiple tie interdependencies between the actors of a social network and, thus, represent an “evolution of statistical models for social networks” (Wasserman & Pattison, 1996, p. 401). ERGMs start by assuming that an observed network between a given number of individuals is created randomly from all the possible networks that could arise between them (Robins & Lusher, 2013). The probability of the emergence of the observed structure is then modeled and estimated, given the actors’ attributes and those of the observed network (Lusher etal., 2013). The resulting structural estimates reveal the likelihood of the emergence of those structures (e.g., reciprocity, popularity spread) compared with the universe of potential networks between those actors, and the estimates of actor attributes demonstrate how likely those attributes drive the formation of ties in the observed network compared to random networks created by chance (Park etal., 2020; Rank & Strenge, 2018). We use ERGMs in Study 1 to examine the drivers of advice exchange in sales. Table2 illustrates the key ERGM terms. Arc represents the baseline propensity for advice exchange. A significant positive (negative) coefficient for arc suggests that advice exchange is relatively more common (less common) in the context under study compared to random graphs created by chance among the existing number of actors. The coefficient for reciprocity captures whether an advice-seeking tie is reciprocated. Popularity spread indicates how likely will “popular advice givers” emerge, and activity spread captures how likely will “active advice seekers” appear in the network compared to chance. Difference (homophily) captures whether difference (similarity) on a given variable is a significant predictor of advice exchange. Advice giving (seeking) on actor relation variables capture whether a variable is a significant predictor of advice giving (seeking). Literature onadvice exchange Management, communication, and small-group scholars who have studied advice exchange contend that all advice 310 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 does not necessarily lead to effective results. Instead, several individual, task-related, and situational factors influence the effectiveness of advice exchange, advice utilization, and the ultimate decision accuracy (e.g., Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006; Bonaccio & Paik, 2018; Yaniv, 2004; Yaniv & Milyavsky, 2007). We borrow from this literature to hypothesize about the link between advice seeking and performance, as well as the influence of the group of peers from whom a salesperson seeks advice. This research stream also has two limitations that we address in our study. First, this literature relies heavily on experimental designs performed in the lab, with few studies carried out in organizational settings (for exceptions, see Ecken & Pibernik, 2016; McDonald etal., 2008). The second, and perhaps more important, limitation is that researchers have not investigated commonly used organizational levers such as incentives and their influence on advice exchange. The type of incentives and whether they foster collaboration or fuel competition can play an integral role in determining whether colleagues choose to seek, give, or use advice and whether the advice can help the advice seeker. Literature onteam andindividual incentives Scholars in marketing, management, and economics have contributed to the literature on team and individual incentives. The first group of scholars, marketing researchers, have mostly used behavioral economics principles and experiments to compare team and individual incentives and their impact on performance (Chen & Chung, 2021; Chen & Lim, 2013; Lim & Chen, 2014). As their main outcome of interest, these researchers have predominantly explored the extent to which experiment participants exert effort under team versus individual incentives. However, in addition to increasing effort, the goal that many sales leaders seek from using team incentives is promoting collaboration, an outcome that marketing researchers have not examined (Table1). In addition, team incentives are seldom used in isolation and are often accompanied by individual incentives in many sales organizations. An example is Merck Pharmaceuticals, which offers both individual incentives and team stock options to bestperforming teams (Parker etal., 2000). Marketing scholars have not investigated the ramifications of a mixed plan that comprises both team and individual incentives. Table 2 Summary of parameters included in the ERGM estimation Actor = salesperson; tie = connection between two actors, indicating a relationship(Wasserman & Faust, 1994) a Tendency for variation means it is more likely that there are differences (vs. no differences) in the degree to which an actor receives multiple advice tie nominations b Black nodes indicate actors with specific attribute Parameter Illustration Interpretation Origin Underlying social processes (structural effects) Arc Baseline propensity to exchange advice Fundamentals of social network research (Wasserman & Faust, 1994) Reciprocity Tendency for reciprocating advice (i.e., mutual ties) Tie strength (Granovetter, 1973) Popularity spread Tendency for variationa in the degree to which an actor receives multiple advice tie nominations (i.e., in-degree distribution) Degree centrality (Freeman, 1979) Activity spread Tendency for variation in the degree to which an actor sends multiple advice ties (i.e., out-degree distribution) Degree centrality (Freeman, 1979) Salespeople’s attributes (actor relation effects)b Homophily (difference) Tendency for advice ties to occur between salespeople who are similar with respect to a specific attribute Homophily theory (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987) Advice seeker Tendency for salespeople with a specific attribute to seek advice Actor attributes (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003) Advice giver Tendency for salespeople with a specific attribute to give advice Actor attributes (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003) 311Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 Management and economics scholars, have also primarily focused on the effort contribution of team members under team versus individual plans as their main variable of interest (e.g., Barnes etal., 2011; Beersma etal., 2003). The majority of these studies compare team-based with individual-based incentives, without exploring mixed structures, which are common in practice. A notable exception is Barnes etal. (2011), who find that employees under mixed incentives perform faster but less accurately. A key difference between this literature and how incentives are implemented in sales organizations is that in sales, most individual incentives are designed to trigger competition among salespeople (Steenburgh & Ahearne, 2012). However, the settings examined in the literature are from noncompeting teammates, and the authors mostly focus on the effort exertion of individuals. Therefore, the competitive element of individual incentives and its impact on collaboration between peers are understudied in the extant literature. Literature oncoopetition Coopetition, or the coexistence of cooperative and competitive motives among business units or firms, has interested mostly strategy scholars in fields such as management and marketing (Gnyawali & Charleton, 2018; Ho & Ganesan, 2013; Luo etal., 2006; Mathias etal., 2018; Rai, 2016; Tsai, 2002). This line of research has examined the extent to which coopetition can lead to mutual benefits and financial gains for the parties involved (Ho & Ganesan, 2013; Mathias etal., 2018; Rai, 2016) and how factors related to organizational structure (e.g., centralization) can moderate knowledge sharing under coopetition (Tsai, 2002). However, the bulk of studies in this research stream focuses on coopetition between firms (Gnyawali & Charleton, 2018; Ho & Ganesan, 2013; Mathias etal., 2018; Rai, 2016), with few instances examining coopetition between cross-functional units within a firm (Luo etal., 2006; Tsai, 2002). There are few studies that do not elaborate on the nature of the actors but primarily draw on game theoretic predictions or lab experiments to study coopetition (Dagnino & Rocco, 2009; Danielson, 2002). However, scholars have not yet examined coopetition arising among individual employees rather than units or firms, triggered by the simultaneous presence of team and individual incentives in real settings (Table1). Conceptual framework andconstructs As Fig.1 shows, our unit of analysis is the individual salesperson, and our framework can be separated into two parts: antecedents and consequences of advice exchange. With regard to antecedents, the ERGM framework identifies two domains of variables that are relevant to advice exchange: social processes and context-relevant employee attributes (Berger etal., 1980; Sauder etal., 2012). In line with previous work on advice seeking (Brennecke & Rank, 2016; Lomi etal., 2014), we focus on arc, reciprocity, popularity spread, and activity spread as key social processes included in our model. To conceptualize the context-relevant employee attributes, we focus on the perceived salience of team incentives to capture how sales organizations promote collaboration (Lim & Chen, 2014). In addition, we focus on the perceived salience of individual incentives to account for the long tradition in sales of stimulating rivalry among salespeople (Bommaraju & Hohenberg, 2018). Thus, we examine how the tension between competition and collaboration in sales (Schrock etal., 2021) drives both advice-seeking and advice-giving behavior. With regard to consequences, we build on previous sales research and research on advice exchange outside the sales context. In particular, we conceptualize performance as the ultimate dependent variable of our framework (Bolander etal., 2021). Moreover, we conceptualize two contingency factors that may influence the relationship between the extent of advice seeking and performance: diversity of advice givers’ team incentives and diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives. While we derive these contingency factors from our theorizing on advice seeking in sales as a process of tension between competitive and cooperative forces, both factors relate to the diversity of the focal salesperson’s group of advisers. We thus aim to capture how different motives of advisers may change the helpfulness of their advice and thus attempt to isolate some of the competitive and cooperative forces at play. Table2 provides illustrations and interpretations of the structural configurations representing the included underlying social processes, and Table3 provides a summary of the key variables and their operational measures. Hypotheses development Drivers ofadvice exchange: Social processes Social processes capture the likelihood that certain network structures commonly present in other advice networks also arise in the advice network of salespeople. The most basic element of a social network is whether two actors are connected through a tie that describes the nature of their relationship. In our context, this represents the likelihood that a salesperson seeks advice from another salesperson. In a coopetitive context where forces of competition and collaboration coexist, we argue that a salesperson’s propensity to collaborate should be lower than in contexts where the competition element is absent. Compared to most other work settings that are neutral at worst and highly collaborative at best (e.g., R&D teams; Reagans & Zuckermann, 2001), the competition element is significant in sales, which is known 312 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 to be one of the most competitive professions in the corporate world (Schrock etal., 2021). Therefore, we expect the baseline propensity for seeking advice to be low in sales, even in the presence of team incentives. However, we further expect that the presence of team incentives would motivate collaboration under competition and lead to a coopetitve setting. Researchers who have studied coopetition in lab experiments or game theoretic setups have contended that reciprocity expectations are what makes collaboration work under competition (Dagnino & Rocco, 2009; Danielson, 2002). In other words, competitors would collaborate with each other, at least in a limited capacity or on specific tasks, as long as they believe that their counterparts will reciprocate (Danielson, 2002; Lascaux, 2020). While reciprocity is a basic human norm, its presence is essential for any collaboration to occur in a competitive context (Dagnino & Rocco, 2009; Danielson, 2002). This expectation is in line with prior findings in the sales context that competing salespeople would talk to each other and share best practices, but only with those whom they have some similarities on factors that would foster opportunities for reciprocity (Atefi etal., 2018). Two other important characteristics of a network are the extent to which an individual is asked for advice by many colleagues (i.e., popularity spread) and the extent to which an individual seeks advice from many colleagues (i.e., activity spread). In network terms, popularity spread captures whether most advice is sought from a few “popular” peers, while activity spread captures whether certain “active” advice seekers exist in the network (Agneessens & Wittek, 2012; Lomi etal., 2014). Both characteristics can be common in other work settings, particularly in contexts in which employees are not directly competing for individual incentives (e.g., Gondal, 2011). For example, technical expertise can drive colleagues in engineering or R&D teams to seek advice from the same popular expert peers, while a new hire in an agile or rotating team can end up asking advice from colleagues from various work groups. However, we argue that the presence of team and individual incentives prohibits both features from becoming dominant. A high popularity spread would imply that “expert” advice givers are present who are generous with giving advice to many peers. However, in a competitive setting, sharing tips with many rivals should naturally weaken one’s own chances in the competition. Prior research indicates that if collaboration has to happen between competitors, it happens very selectively and in social niches rather than broadly with many peers (Lazega etal., 2016). Therefore, we hypothesize that generous advice givers are less likely to emerge under individual incentives, since the resulting competition should prevent salespeople from wanting to share their tips with many other colleagues. Similarly, the presence of active advice seekers is less likely under both team and individual incentives. Those who seek advice from many others come across as incompetent (Blunden etal., 2019b), and thus can be viewed as a weak link in the efforts to attain the team incentive. In addition, advice givers have been shown to dislike those who seek advice from many others, as such peers are perceived as “information collectors” rather than sincere in applying Fig. 1 Conceptual framework 313Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 revenue of each salesperson in the year after the survey, calculated as the absolute revenue realized in t + 1 divided by the number of months a salesperson worked for the company in t + 1. Also, using a year’s average monthly revenue instead of a year’s absolute revenue allows for a better comparison in case salespeople have started or ended working for the company during a year. To operationalize the extent of advice seeking, we again used the list of names generated from the free-recall nomination method from Study 1 (see again Web Appendix W3). That is, the extent of advice seeking refers to how many colleagues a salesperson consults for guidance on a particular work-related issue. To operationalize the diversity of advice givers’ team and individual incentives, we used the survey responses of a salesperson’s designated advisers. In the survey, all salespeople reported the extent to which team and individual incentives are used in their respective sales units (Hohenberg & Homburg, 2016; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994). For each advice-seeking salesperson, we calculated the standard deviations of the responses on the extent of team and individual incentives across all peers from whom the salesperson had reported seeking advice (i.e., the advice givers). Last, we included a rich set of control variables in our model to account for individual and situational factors that may influence salesperson performance (see Fig.1 for the list of controls). Detailed descriptions of the selection of controls in Study 2 are available in Web Appendix W7. Table6 summarizes the descriptive statistics and correlations of Study 2’s variables. Measurement assessment and analytical procedure To assess measurement reliability and validity for all reflective constructs, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses. The results based on all survey responses revealed that our scales achieved sufficient psychometric properties by surpassing recommended thresholds (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012) (Web Appendix W4 provides details). Composite reliabilities of all Table 5 Study 1: ERGM parameter estimates for advice seeking in sales units * p < .05; **p < .01. Standard errors (SEs) are in parentheses. AIC = Akaike information criterion goodness of fit. For effect illustrations, see Table2 Parameter H Model 1 Baseline Model 2 Actor relation effects only Model 3 Actor relation effects and structural effects Underlying social processes (structural effects) Arc H1a ✓-6.20 (.04)** -6.85 (.01)** -6.07 (.02)** Reciprocity H1b ✓2.39 (.18)** 2.39 (.01)** 2.38 (.03)** Popularity spread H1c ✓-.98 (.01)** Activity spread H1d ✓-2.23 (.01)** Control variable: Within-unit focus Unit ID (matching) 3.95 (.09)** 4.08 (.01)** 3.80 (.02)** Salespeople’s attributes (actor relation effects): Incentives Salience of team incentives (difference) .16 (.00)** .11 (.00)** Salience of team incentives (advice seeking) H2a ✓-.05 (.00)** -.04 (.00)** Salience of team incentives (advice giving) H2b ✓.10 (.00)** .09 (.00)** Salience of individual incentives (difference) .09 (.00)** .10 (.00)** Salience of individual incentives (advice seeking) H3a ✓.07 (.00)** .05 (.00)** Salience of individual incentives (advice giving) H3b ✓-.03 (.00)** -.02 (.00)** Salespeople’s attributes (actor relation effects): Controls Company tenure (difference) .00 (.00) -.00 (.00)** Company tenure (advice seeking) -.03 (.00)** -.02 (.00)** Company tenure (advice giving) .03 (.00)** .03 (.00)** Unit tenure (difference) .13 (.00)** .11 (.00)** Unit tenure (advice seeking) -.06 (.00)** -.06 (.00)** Unit tenure (advice giving) -.11 (.00)** -.09 (.00)** Past performance (difference) -.00 (.00)** -.00 (.00)* Past performance (advice seeking) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) Past performance (advice giving) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) Model information AIC 10,101 9,897 9,523 320 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 Table 6 Study 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations * p < .05; **p < .01. t = investigation period. Effective sample in Study 2 comprises those salespeople who sought advice from at least one colleague (i.e., extent of advice seeking > 0) Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 Salesperson performance 11.11 .90 — 2 Extent of advice seeking 3.31 1.37 .16*— 3 Diversity of advice givers’ team incentives .89 .66 -.01 .13 — 4 Diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives 1.00 .68 -.02 .14 .62** — 5 Past performance (t – 1) 11.11 .95 .78** .17*-.09 -.07 — 6 Past performance (t – 2) 10.98 1.03 .57** .12 -.13 -.06 .76** — 7 Average extent of advice givers’ team incentives 4.75 .81 -.08 .01 -.23** -.04 -.10 -.10 — 8 Average extent of advice givers’ individual incentives 4.09 .79 -.13 -.05 -.28** -.01 -.17*-.08 .57** — 9 Extent of team incentives 4.80 1.41 -.05 .07 -.01 -.07 -.05 -.03 .19*.09 — 10 Extent of individual incentives 4.01 1.63 -.11 -.03 -.01 -.05 -.08 -.07 .19*.25** .50** — 11 Supervisor supportiveness 5.72 1.39 -.02 .02 -.11 -.08 -.02 .04 .07 .20** .18*.38** — 12 Supervisor centrality 3.75 1.59 -.01 -.03 .14 .17*-.02 -.08 -.18*-.24** -.12 -.13 -.26** — 13 Collaboration intensity within unit (employee’s perception) 5.45 1.35 -.11 .02 -.17*-.20** -.05 .05 .13 .24** .12 .19*.21** -.18*— 14 Collaboration intensity within unit (supervisor’s perception) 3.71 1.57 -.19*-.02 -.09 -.06 -.12 -.09 .17*.26** .21** .54** .56** -.22** .26** — 15 Collaboration with other units 5.02 1.35 -.08 .02 -.11 -.08 -.14 -.12 .19*.17*.31** .31** .29** -.25** .22** .32** — 16 Peer pressure 3.08 1.71 .07 -.10 .05 .03 .09 .07 -.05 -.04 -.17*-.02 -.22** .29** -.25** -.13 -.21** — 17 Unit size 4.18 3.53 -.25** -.01 -.10 -.12 -.12 -.04 -.07 -.13 .06 -.01 .02 .04 .06 .07 .01 .10 — 18 Company tenure 11.12 8.27 -.21** -.18*-.05 -.10 -.12 -.13 .04 .03 .15*.19*.05 .03 .13 .08 .19*-.01 .18*— 19 Age 38.74 10.89 -.14 -.16*.03 .08 -.14 -.08 .09 .11 .11 .15*.06 .03 .06 .07 .24** .03 .04 .55** — 321Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 constructs are greater than 0.70, average variance extracted (AVE) is greater than 0.50, and Cronbach’s α is greater than 0.70. Almost all item loadings are greater than 0.70. Finally, the square root of the AVE for each construct exceeds the correlation with the other framework constructs, meeting the criterion of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and supporting desired discriminant validity of the included constructs. To test our hypotheses, we ran ordinary least squares regressions using R. We mean-centered all predictor variables before including the interaction effects (Hofmann, 1997). We first estimated a model including only our hypothesized effects (Model 4) before including the controls (Model 5). Table7 shows the results for the relationship between the extent of advice seeking and salesperson performance (for details of the model specifications, see Web Appendix W6). Results Overall, the results reveal support for the hypothesized effects in Study 2. In support of H4, Model 4 shows that the extent of advice seeking positively affects salesperson performance (b = .09; p < .05). However, when including controls, Model 5 reports no significant effect (b = –.01; p > .1), which implies that the effectiveness of advice seeking strongly depends on contextual factors. Regarding the other hypotheses, both models are highly consistent. Specifically, in line with H5a and H5b, Models 4 and 5 show a Table 7 Study 2: Results of regression analysis and robustness checks * p < .05; **p < .01. t = investigation period. The effective sample in Study 2 comprises those salespeople who sought advice from at least one colleague (i.e., extent of advice seeking > 0). For the robustness checks with profit as a dependent variable (Models 7 and 8), past performance refers to profit instead of revenue. We mean-centered all predictor variables before including the moderating effects. Condition indices and variance inflation factors of the coefficients indicate that multicollinearity is not a concern Dependent variable: Salesperson performance H Model 4 Revenue Model 5 Revenue Robustness checks Model 6 Revenue Model 7 Profit Model 8 Profit Extent of advice seeking H4 (✓) .09*-.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 Diversity of advice givers’ team incentives H5a ✓.31*.29*.30*.29*.30* Diversity of advice givers' individual incentives H5b ✓-.37*-.23*-.24*-.23*-.24* Extent of advice seeking × Diversity of advice givers’ team incentives H6a ✓-.20*-.15*-.16*-.15*-.16* Extent of advice seeking × Diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives H6b ✓.23*.17*.17*.17*.17* Controls Past performance (t – 1) .73** .74** .75** .76** Past performance (t – 2) -.04 -.04 -.05 -.05 Average extent of advice givers’ team incentives .01 .00 .00 -.00 Average extent of advice givers’ individual incentives .01 .03 .02 .04 Extent of team incentives .01 .01 .01 .01 Extent of individual incentives -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 Supervisor supportiveness .05 .04 .05 .04 Supervisor centrality .01 .01 .01 .01 Collaboration intensity within unit (employee’s perception) -.02 -.02 -.02 -.02 Collaboration intensity within unit (supervisor’s perception) -.07*-.07*-.07*-.07* Collaboration with other units .06 .06 .06 .06 Peer pressure .01 .01 .00 .00 Unit size -.04** -.04** -.04** -.04** Company tenure -.01*-.01*-.01*-.01* Age .00 .00 .00 .00 Gender -.01 -.01 .00 .00 Territory (dummies) Included Included Included Included Additional Interactions Extent of advice seeking × Average extent of advice givers’ team incentives .00 .00 Extent of advice seeking × Average extent of advice givers’ individual incentives -.01 -.01 Model Information  R2.05 .73 .73 .73 .73 322 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 positive effect of the diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives (b = .31 and b = .29; p < .05) and a negative effect of the diversity of advice givers’ team incentives (b = –.37 and b = –.23; p < .05) on salesperson performance. Finally, both Models 4 and 5 show support for H6a and H6b. More precisely, the extent of advice seeking negatively interacts with the diversity of advice givers’ team incentives (b = –.20 and b = –.15; p < .05) and positively interacts with the diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives (b = .23 and b = .17; p < .05). To confirm the robustness of the findings, we conducted various checks. Specifically, we estimated models including additional interactions of advice seeking with the average extents of advice givers’ team and individual incentives (Model 6 in Table7), using an alternative dependent variable (i.e., profit; Model 7), and both (Model 8). Web Appendix W2 provides details on these robustness checks as well as established bias checks (e.g., nonresponse bias and common method bias) and remedies. Discussion Despite the importance of advice exchange in sales, several questions remain regarding what factors drive the creation of advice exchange ties in sales and how incentives may influence the motives and value of advice within a social network (Table1). Our research provides insights through a large-scale field study with 540 salespeople at a leading B2B company. Study 1’s ERGM results reveal that individual incentives promote advice seeking but discourage advice giving, and team incentives stimulate advice giving but reduce advice seeking. Study 2’s results suggest that the effectiveness of advice strongly depends on advice givers. In particular, when advice givers have diverse team incentives, the advice is more effective and the need for additional advice is reduced, while diversity of advice givers’ individual incentives hurts performance, and thus additional advice is required. Theoretical contributions Our study’s approach and findings contribute to the literature in at least three ways. First, this study is the first to examine various social processes (i.e., structural effects) that determine advice exchange in sales and to apply the new ERGM framework to investigate such exchange. The findings imply that advice seeking is strongly governed by underlying social processes that may differ from those in other work contexts. Compared to other work contexts, advice seeking in sales is less prevalent. The findings also reveal that underlying social processes, in which one employee is asked for advice by many colleagues or one employee seeks advice from many colleagues, are less likely in sales. In other words, we find that salespeople, particularly under coopetition, are less likely to seek advice compared to other employees in other contexts. By contrast, previous studies in other work contexts have found that these underlying social processes are more likely (e.g., a trade fair of distributors and producers of TV programs in Brailly etal., 2016) or not significantly different than chance (e.g., networks of executives in Kim etal., 2016). Thus, the study emphasizes the unique features of advice seeking in sales, underscoring the need for more nuanced investigations of social behaviors in the sales context. Second, this study examines the salience of incentives as salesperson attributes that differentially determine advice exchange in sales. Previous research has shown that extrinsic motivation promotes knowledge exchange in teams (David etal., 2020) and that reaching out to people is generally based on the desire for novelty and engagement (Walter etal., 2015), as well as the prospect’s accessibility and trustworthiness (Hofmann etal., 2009). Missing, however, is consideration of the tension created by the presence of both competitive and collaborative motives stemming from the simultaneous usage of team and individual incentives. Drawing from the literature on team and individual incentives, we argue that individual incentives motivate salespeople to improve but, at the same time, heighten competition, which explains why such incentives promote advice seeking (improvement motive) but discourage advice giving (competition motive). Moreover, team incentives both underscore the importance of and trigger the reliance on the collective effort of the team (Barnes etal., 2011; Karau & Williams, 1993), which explains why such incentives encourage advice giving (to ensure teammates put in their share of effort) but decrease the likelihood of advice seeking (reduced focus on one’s own effort). The results provide support for this theorizing, thus highlighting the need for differentiated and context-specific investigations of social behavior. Such studies would be of high academic value, as they would provide insight into which findings from broader settings generalize and which findings are context specific. Third, this study considers in more detail the type of advice salespeople receive from their colleagues and how different types may have varying value. By contrast, prior work on social networks in sales has taken a structural perspective and thus implicitly assumed that all network ties are equally important or useful (Brass & Borgatti, 2020). We theorized and found that seeking advice from more people improves performance, but we also argued that the effectiveness of advice depends on whom the advice is sought from and how diverse the perspectives of the advice givers are. These findings highlight the need for sales research to move beyond structural approaches to social networks and 323Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 also consider the nuances of tie formation, tie importance, and tie usefulness. Managerial implications Our results offer important insights to managers. In particular, our findings reveal the opposing effects of team and individual incentives on the likelihood of advice exchange as well as the usefulness of advice and its performance implications. While sales leaders who add team incentives often intend to foster collaboration in their sales force, the impact of such incentives on collaboration is very different from other non-competing functions. This is mainly because the individual incentives that most sales organizations put in place are typically designed to spur competition among salespeople. The presence of both team and individual incentives thus creates a complex dynamic with opposing forces of collaboration and competition. To reduce such tensions, sales leaders can provide team incentives for specific tasks and disentangle performance on those tasks from individual incentives created for other tasks. For instance, sales leaders can provide separate team bonuses or rewards to promote cross-selling or team-selling activities among salespeople to facilitate sharing of customer and product information or advice exchange in difficult selling situations, but exclude performance on such occasions from the overall leaderboard or contest. This approach would ensure that competitive motives do not hamper collaboration. Another possibility that is rarely applied in practice is incentivizing collaboration by including advice givers in the overall individual leaderboard. For instance, winners of a sales contest can be asked to mention their helpers and advisers, with those colleagues also being rewarded for their help. In addition, sales organizations can more formally reward advice exchange by creating programs in which star salespeople partner with weaker salespeople or new hires and help them improve their performance, in exchange for receiving a bonus or partial commission for the first two or three successful sales of their partner. Such programs exist in some organizations between managers and new hires (Viswanathan etal., 2018), but they can be implemented among colleagues as well. Finally, results reveal that long company tenure and unit tenure of salespeople is associated with less advice seeking. We therefore recommend that managers who want to increase advice seeking in their sales units consider implementing horizontal career paths for salespeople. Anecdotal evidence indicates that, particularly in the sales context, promoting employees solely based on performance is not necessarily the most effective approach and that other development paths can also be very useful (Lilien & Grewal, 2012). Our results strengthen this view, as salespeople who have worked in the company for a long time are generally more likely to be advice givers. However, salespeople who work in the same unit for a long time are actually less likely to be advice givers. Managers could approach these salespeople with opportunities with a focus on horizontal development to find natural offshoots of their current responsibilities to create a more effective, socially connected, and supportive salesforce. Limitations andfuture research directions This research has several limitations that provide opportunities for further research. First, owing to the cross-sectional nature of the collected survey data, Study 1 is correlational. While this limitation is common for studies using ERGMs (Duxbury, 2018), we encourage future work on advice seeking to use different empirical approaches, such as laboratory experiments, to fully isolate the causal effects related to the antecedents of advice exchange in sales. Second, while this study focused on scrutinizing “solution advice,” which is particularly common in sales, prior work indicates that other forms of advice exist, such as “problem reformulation” (Cross etal., 2001). Although we do not expect the drivers of these other forms to differ substantially from the investigated solution advice, we encourage future work to directly examine these forms. Furthermore, to unpack more details about advice seeking in sales, research that differentiates instrumental from relational ties and strength from quality of ties (Granovetter, 1973) and also explores temporal aspects of how advice seeking evolves over time would be valuable. Third, this study disentangles several unique structures and attributes that drive advice seeking in sales. Future work could build on these insights in various ways. For example, future investigators could examine other social behavior in sales units, such as information exchange via sales learning platforms or mentoring relationships. In addition, studies could examine how the investigated actor attributes under consideration of the underlying social processes differ in their explanation of advice seeking in other entities, such as new product development units or adaptive business units. Fourth, for our empirical investigation, we collaborated with the inside sales organization of a global B2B supplier. While we expect the hypothesized effects to generalize to other sales settings characterized by the coopetition nature of inside sales, we recommend that future research directly examines these settings. For example, more consultative or complex selling settings (e.g., field sales force, key account management) may be associated with different functions and units, which may help tease out more of the nuances related to the role of different dimensions of tenure (e.g., company tenure vs. unit tenure vs. functional tenure) in driving advice exchange in sales. 324 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 Fifth, our framework and hypotheses relate to the salience of individual versus team incentives because these incentives promote a diverging focus on competition versus collaboration. Both types of incentives have monetary and non-monetary components in our empirical setting. Future work can explore the monetary and non-monetary nature of incentives and tease out its impact on advice exchange and collaboration. Sixth, future research can also explore situations where advice seekers know a priori the advice givers’ stance on certain issues that might bias their advice. A promising avenue is to investigate how such knowledge can change the advice seeker’s choice of whom to seek advice from and the degree of advice utilization. Seventh, an interesting future direction could be examining the effectiveness of formal advice-giving sessions, which are employed by many organizations. For instance, a large B2B finance firm uses such sessions to facilitate collaboration and generate ideas for improvement. The effectiveness of these sessions in the presence of competition would be an interesting topic for further investigation.4 Eighth, we used a one-way free nomination recall to collect our network information, following the best practices in network research (e.g., Borgatti etal., 2018). Such methodologies rely on and assume the accuracy of self-reported relationships. Future research can use a two-way nomination, asking individuals to name colleagues from whom they seek advice along with the colleagues to whom they give advice, and then cross-validate these lists. Ninth, while the ERGM framework captures a main effect for the general likelihood of reciprocity in the network, it does not allow capturing the impact of actor relations, such as incentives, on reciprocity. Future research can specifically focus on modeling this feature of the network. Tenth, due to the limitations of our field research, we could not control for specific ways that individuals weigh the advice they receive. Further research, in either lab or the field, can study and control for such weighting schemes.5 Finally, addressing unobserved heterogeneity in ERGM networks is currently carried out for undirected social networks (Box-Steffensmeier etal., 2018), while our network is a directed one, a limitation that future research can overcome. The work of Ameri etal. (2022) and similar other creative ways to address this issue can guide such future endeavors. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 023- 00939-1. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the submitted manuscript “JAMS-D-20–00580.R5 ‘Coopetition’ in the presence of team and individual incentives: Evidence from the advice network of a sales organization”. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Adamson, B., Dixon, M., Toman, N. (2014).Why Individuals No Longer Rule on Sales Teams. Harvard Business Review.https:// hbr. org/ 2014/ 01/ whythe- indiv idualno- longerrules- insales Agneessens, F., & Wittek, R. (2012). Where Do Intra-Organizational Advice Relations Come From? The Role of Informal Status and Social Capital in Social Exchange. Social Networks, 34(3), 333– 345. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2011. 04. 002 Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Hayati, B., & Kraus, F. (2013). Intrafunctional Competitive Intelligence and Sales Performance: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 37–56. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 11. 0217 Ameri, M., Honka, E., & Xie, Y. (2022). EXPRESS: From Strangers to Friends: Tie Formations and Online Activities in an Evolving Social Network. Journal of Marketing Research. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43722 11079 00 Atefi, Y., Ahearne, M., Maxham, J. G., Donavan, D. T., & Carlson, B. D. (2018). Does Selective Sales Force Training Work? Journal of Marketing Research, 55(5), 722–737. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43718 803096 Babcock, P., Bedard, K., Charness, G., Hartman, J., & Royer, H. (2015). Letting Down the Team? Social Effects of Team Incentives. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(5), 841–870. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jeea. 12131 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 011- 0278-x Bandiera, O., Barankay, I., & Rasul, I. (2013). Team Incentives: Evidence from a Firm Level Experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(5), 1079–1114. Barnes, C. M., Hollenbeck, J. R., Jundt, D. K., DeRue, D. S., & Harmon, S. J. (2011). Mixing Individual Incentives and Group Incentives: Best of Both Worlds or Social Dilemma? Journal of Management, 37(6), 1611–1635. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06309 360845 4 We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. 5 A similarity-based weighting scheme carried out for firms can be found in the Web Appendix D of Limet al. (2020). 325Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, Competition, and Team Performance: Toward a Contingency Approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 572–590. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 5465/ 30040 650 Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Morris, Z., Jr. (1980). Status Organizing Processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6(1), 479–508. Blunden, H., Logg, J. M., Brooks, A. W., John, L. K., & Gino, F. (2019a). Seeker Beware: The Interpersonal Costs of Ignoring Advice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 83–100. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2 018. 12. 002 Blunden, H., Logg, J. M., Brooks, A. W., John, L. K., Gino, F. (2019b). How Asking Multiple People for Advice Can Backfire. Harvard Business Review. https:// hbr. org/ 2019b/ 05/ howasking- multi plepeople- foradvice- canbackfi re. Accessed 17 April 2022. Boichuk, J. P., Bommaraju, R., Ahearne, M., Kraus, F., & Steenburgh, T. J. (2019). Managing Laggards: The Importance of a Deep Sales Bench. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 652–665. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43718 824561 Bolander, W., Chaker, N. N., Pappas, A., & Bradbury, D. R. (2021). Operationalizing Salesperson Performance with Secondary Data: Aligning Practice, Scholarship, and Theory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(3), 462–481. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 020- 00752-0 Bolander, W., Satornino, C. B., Hughes, D. E., & Ferris, G. R. (2015). Social Networks within Sales Organizations. Their Development and Importance for Salesperson Performance. Journal of Marketing, 79(6), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 14. 0444 Bommaraju, R., & Hohenberg, S. (2018). Self-Selected Sales Incentives. Evidence of their Effectiveness, Persistence, Durability, and Underlying Mechanisms. Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 106– 124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 17. 0002 Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice Taking and Decision-Mak- ing: An Integrative Literature Review, and Implications for the Organizational Sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 127–151. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2006. 07. 001 Bonaccio, S., Paik, J. E. (2018), Advice in the Workplace, in The Oxford handbook of advice. Oxford handbooks online Linguistics, Erina L. MacGeorge and Lyn M. van Swol, eds. Oxford University Press, 255–75. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE Publications. Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., Christenson, D. P., & Morgan, J. W. (2018). Modeling Unobserved Heterogeneity in Social Networks with the Frailty Exponential Random Graph Model. Political Analysis, 26(1), 3–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ pan. 2017. 23 Brailly, J., Favre, G., Chatellet, J., & Lazega, E. (2016). Embeddedness as a Multilevel Problem: A Case Study in Economic Sociology. Social Networks, 44, 319–333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2015. 03. 005 Brass, Daniel J., & Borgatti, Stephen P. (2020). Social Networks at Work. SIOP organizational frontiers series. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential Power and Power Use: An Investigation of Structure and Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ 256588 Brennecke, J., & Rank, O. N. (2016). The Interplay between Formal Project Memberships and Informal Advice Seeking in Knowledge-Intensive Firms: A Multilevel Network Approach. Social Networks, 44, 307–318. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2015. 02. 004 Budescu, D. V., & Rantilla, A. K. (2000). Confidence in Aggregation of Expert Opinions. Acta Psychologica, 104(3), 371–398. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0001- 6918(00) 00037-8 Carucci, R. (2020). How to Overcome Your Obsession with Helping Others, https:// hbr. org/ 2020/ 02/ how- to- overc omeyour- obses sionwith- helpi ngothers. Accessed 27 April 2022. Chen, H., & Chung, K. (2021). Increasing Team Performance by Sharing Success. Journal of Marketing Research, 58(4), 662– 685. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43721 10218 35 Chen, H., & Lim, N. (2013). Should Managers Use Team-Based Contests? Management Science, 59(12), 2823–2836. Chen, H., & Lim, N. (2017). How Does Team Composition Affect Effort in Contests? A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(1), 44–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jmr. 15. 0201 Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (2006). Testing Multitheoretical, Multilevel Hypotheses about Organizational Networks: An Analytic Framework and Empirical Example. The Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 681–703. Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). “Information Seeking in Social Context: Structural Influences and Receipt of Information Benefits”, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part C (applications and Reviews), 31(4), 438–448. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ 5326. 983927 Dagnino, G. B., Rocco, E. (2009). Coopetition Strategy: Theory, Experiments and Cases (Vol. 47). Routledge. Dalal, R. S, Bonaccio, S. (2010).What Types of Advice Do Decision-Makers Prefer?In: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (1), 11–23. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2009. 11. 007 Danielson, P. (2002). Competition Among Cooperators: Altruism and Reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl_3), 7237–7242. David, N., Brennecke, J., & Rank, O. (2020). Extrinsic Motivation as a Determinant of Knowledge Exchange in Sales Teams: A Social Network Approach. Human Resource Management, 59(4), 339–358. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrm. 21999 Duxbury, S. W. (2018). Diagnosing Multicollinearity in Exponential Random Graph Models. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 491–530. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00491 24118 782543 Ecken, P., & Pibernik, R. (2016). Hit or Miss: What Leads Experts to Take Advice for Long-Term Judgments? Management Science, 62(7), 2002–2021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 2015. 2219 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 43781 01800 313 Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0378- 8733(78) 90021-7 Friebel, G., Heinz, M., Krueger, M., & Zubanov, N. (2017). Team Incentives and Performance. Evidence from a Retail Chain. American Economic Review, 107(8), 2168–2203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1257/ aer. 20160 788 Garvin, D. A., & Margolis, J. D. (2015). The Art of Giving and Receiving Advice. Harvard Business Review, 93(1), 60–71. Ghosh, A., Ranganathan, R., & Rosenkopf, L. (2016). The Impact of Context and Model Choice on the Determinants of Strategic Alliance Formation: Evidence from a Staged Replication Study. Strategic Management Journal, 37(11), 2204–2221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2570 Gnyawali, D. R., & Charleton, T. R. (2018). Nuances in the Interplay of Competition and Cooperation: Towards a Theory of Coopetition. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2511–2534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06318 788945 Gomez-Mejia, L. R., Franco-Santos, M. (2015). Team-Based Incentives: Creating a Culture of Collaboration, Innovation, and Performance, in The Compensation Handbook, Sixth Edition: A State-of-the-Art Guide to Compensation Strategy and Design, 326 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 6th Edition, Lance Berger and Dorothy Berger, eds., 6th Edition. Sebastopol, CA: McGraw-Hill; O’Reilly Media Inc, 199–209. Gondal, N. (2011). The Local and Global Structure of Knowledge Production in an Emergent Research Field: An Exponential Random Graph Analysis. Social Networks, 33(1), 20–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2010. 09. 001 Gonzalez, G. R., Claro, D. P., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Synergistic Effects of Relationship Managers’ Social Networks on Sales Performance. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), 76–94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 11. 0431 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. Greene, R. J. (2020). Managing performance and rewards for teams. https:// www. linke din. com/ pulse/ manag ingper fo rmancerewar dstea msrobert- greene Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). statnet: Software Tools for the Representation, Visualization, Analysis and Simulation of Network Data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(1), 1548–7660. Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking Advice: Accepting Help, Improving Judgment, and Sharing Responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117–133. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ obhd. 1997. 2697 Hayati, B., Atefi, Y., & Ahearne, M. (2018). Sales Force Leadership during Strategy Implementation: A Social Network Perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 612–631. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 017- 0557-2 Ho, H., & Ganesan, S. (2013). Does Knowledge Base Compatibility Help or Hurt Knowledge Sharing between Suppliers in Coopetition? The Role of Customer Participation. Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 91–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 11. 0570 Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An Overview of the Logic and Rationale of Hierarchical Linear Models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723–744. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0149- 2063(97) 90026-X Hofmann, D. A., Lei, Z., & Grant, A. M. (2009). Seeking Help in the Shadow of Doubt: The Sensemaking Processes Underlying How Nurses Decide Whom to Ask for Advice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1261–1274. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0016 557 Hogan, R. A. (2014). Characteristics of a Good Advice Giver and the Impact of Financial Incentives and Competition on Advice Quality and Advisors’ Confidence. University of Leicester. Hohenberg, S., & Homburg, C. (2016). Motivating Sales Reps for Innovation Selling in Different Cultures. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 101–120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jm. 14. 0398 Hohenberg, S., & Homburg, C. (2019). Enhancing Innovation Commercialization through Supervisor-Sales Rep Fit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 681–701. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 019- 00644-y Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing Survey Research Best Practices: Evidence and Recommendations from a Review of JAMS Articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 017- 0532-y Hunter, D. R., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). Inference in Curved Exponential Family Models for Networks. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 565–583. Hunter, D. R., Handcock, M. S., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). ergm: A Package to Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(3), 1–29. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. psych. 56. 091103. 070250 Johnson, T. R., Budescu, D. V., & Wallsten, T. S. (2001). Averaging Probability Judgments: Monte Carlo Analyses of Asymptotic Diagnostic Value. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14(2), 123–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ bdm. 369 Jungermann, H., & Fischer, K. (2005). Using Expertise and Experience for Giving and Taking Advice. In N. York (Ed.), The Routines of Decision Making, Tilmann Betsch and Susanne Haberstroh (pp. 157–173). Psychology Press. Kalra, A., & Shi, M. (2001). Designing Optimal Sales Contests: A Theoretical Perspective. Marketing Science, 20(2), 170–193. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mksc. 20.2. 170. 10193 Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social Loafing: A Meta- Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514. 65.4. 681 Kilduff, Martin, & Tsai, Wenpin. (2003). Social Networks and Organizations. SAGE Publications. Kim, J. Y., Howard, M., Pahnke, E. C., & Boeker, W. (2016). Understanding Network Formation in Strategy Research: Exponential Random Graph Models. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1), 22–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2454 Koskinen, Johan, & Snijders, Tom. (2013). Simulation, Estimation, and Goodness of Fit. In Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen, & Garry Robins (Eds.), Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lascaux, A. (2020). Coopetition and Trust: What We Know, Where to Go Next. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 2–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. indma rman. 2019. 05. 015 Lazega, E., Bar-Hen, A., Barbillon, P., & Donnet, S. (2016). Effects of Competition on Collective Learning in Advice Networks. Social Networks, 47, 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socnet. 2016. 04. 001 Lim, N., & Chen, H. (2014). When Do Group Incentives for Salespeople Work? Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 320–334. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jmr. 13. 0322 Lilien, G. L., & Grewal, R. (2012). Handbook of business-to-business marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4337/ 97817 81002 445 Lim, L. G., Tuli, K. R., & Grewal, R. (2020). Customer Satisfaction and its Impact on the Future Costs of Selling. Journal of Marketing, 84(4), 23–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00222 42920 923307 Lomi, A., Lusher, D., Pattison, P. E., & Robins, G. (2014). The Focused Organization of Advice Relations: A Study in Boundary Crossing. Organization Science, 25(2), 438–457. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2013. 0850 Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-Functional “Coopetition”: The Simultaneous Role of Cooperation and Competition within Firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jmkg. 70.2. 067 Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013). Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks. Cambridge University Press. MacGeorge, E. L., Guntzviller, L. M., Hanasono, L. K., & Feng, Bo. (2016). Testing Advice Response Theory in Interactions With Friends. Communication Research, 43(2), 211–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00936 50213 510938 Madhavan, R., Gnyawali, D. R., & He, J. (2004). Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd? Triads in Cooperative-Competitive Networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 918–927. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ 20159 631 Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network Data and Measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 435–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev. so. 16. 080190. 002251 Mathias, B. D., Huyghe, A., Frid, C. J., & Galloway, T. L. (2018). An Identity Perspective on Coopetition in the Craft Beer Industry. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3086–3115. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2734 McDonald, M. L., Khanna, P., Westphal, J. D. (2008). Getting Them to Think Outside the Circle: Corporate Governance, CEOs’ External Advice Networks, and Firm Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 453-475.https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2008. 32625 969. 327Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328 1 3 McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to- Face Groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3), 370–379. Mossholder, K. W., Richardson, H. A., & Settoon, R. P. (2011). Human Resource Systems and Helping in Organizations: A Relational Perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 33–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2009. 0402 Panopto (2018), Inefficient Knowledge Sharing Costs Businesses $47 Million Annually. https:// www. panop to. com/ about/ news/ ineff icientknowl edgeshari ngcosts- largebusin esses- 47- milli onper- year/. Accessed 27 April 2022. Park, S., Grosser, T. J., Roebuck, A. A., & Mathieu, J. E. (2020). Understanding Work Teams From a Network Perspective: A Review and Future Research Directions. Journal of Management, 5, 014920632090157. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06320 901573 Parker, G. M., McAdams, J., & Zielinski, D. (2000). Rewarding Teams: Lessons from the Trenches. The Jossey-Bass business & management series (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers. Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An Examination of the Psychometric Properties and Nomological Validity of Some Revised and Reduced Substitutes for Leadership Scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 79.5. 702 Rai, R. K. (2016). A Co-opetition-Based Approach to Value Creation in Interfirm Alliances: Construction of a Measure and Examination of Its Psychometric Properties. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1663–1699. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06313 515525 Rank, O. N., & Strenge, M. (2018). Entrepreneurial Orientation as a Driver of Brokerage in External Networks: Exploring the Effects of Risk Taking, Proactivity, and Innovativeness. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(4), 482–503. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ sej. 1290 Reagans, R., & Zuckermann, E. W. (2001). Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517. Robins, Garry and Galina Daraganova (2013), “Social Selection, Dyadic Covariates, and Geospatial Effects,” in Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks, Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen and Garry Robins, eds. Cambridge University Press. Robins, G., & Lusher, D. (2013). What Are Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGM)? In D. Lusher, J. Koskinen, & G. Robins (Eds.), Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks (pp. 9–15). Cambridge University Press. Sauder, M., Lynn, F., & Podolny, J. M. (2012). Status: Insights from Organizational Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38(1), 267–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evsoc- 071811- 145503 Schrock, W. A., Hughes, D. E., Zhao, Y., Voorhees, C., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2021). Self-Oriented Competitiveness in Salespeople: Sales Management Implications. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(6), 1201–1221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11747- 021- 00792-0 Snijders, T. A., Pattison, P. E., Robins, G. L., & Handcock, M. S. (2006). New Specifications For Exponential Random Graph Models. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 99–153. Steenburgh, T., & Ahearne, M. (2012). Motivating Salespeople: What Really Works. Harvard Business Review, 90(7–8), 70–75. Thompson, L. L. (2018). Making the Team: A Guide for Managers (6th ed.). Pearson. Tsai, W. (2002). Social Structure of “Coopetition” Within a Multiunit Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational Knowledge Sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179– 190. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 13.2. 179. 536 Van den Bulte, C., & Wuyts, S. (2007). Social Networks and Marketing. Relevant knowledge series. Marketing Science Inst. Van Swol, L. M., & Ludutsky, C. L. (2007). Tell Me Something I Don’t Know. Communication Research, 34(3), 297–312. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00936 50207 300430 Viswanathan, M., Li, X., John, G., & Narasimhan, Om. (2018). Is Cash King for Sales Compensation Plans? Evidence from a Large- Scale Field Intervention. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(3), 368–381. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1509/ jmr. 14. 0290 Walter, J., Levin, D. Z., & Murnighan, J. K. (2015). Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties. Organization Science, 26(5), 1447–1465. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2015. 0996 Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis - Methods and Application. Cambridge University. Wasserman, S., & Pattison, P. (1996). Logit Models and Logistic Regressions for Social Networks: I. An Introduction to Markov Graphs and p*. Psychometrika, 61(3), 401–425. Yaniv, I. (2004). The Benefit of Additional Opinions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 75–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0963- 7214. 2004. 00278.x Yaniv, I., & Milyavsky, M. (2007). Using Advice from Multiple Sources to Revise and Improve Judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 104–120. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. obhdp. 2006. 05. 006 Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 328 Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (2024) 52:306–328