This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 26 September 2014, At: 05:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

Salespeople as knowledge brokers: a review andcritique of the challenger sales modelAdam Rappa, Daniel G. Bachrachb, Nikolaos Panagopoulosa & Jessica Ogilviea

a Department of Marketing, University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USAb Department of Management, University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487,USAPublished online: 16 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Adam Rapp, Daniel G. Bachrach, Nikolaos Panagopoulos & Jessica Ogilvie (2014) Salespeople asknowledge brokers: a review and critique of the challenger sales model, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,34:4, 245-259, DOI: 10.1080/08853134.2014.908126

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.908126

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Salespeople as knowledge brokers: a review and critique of the challenger sales model

Adam Rappa*, Daniel G. Bachrachb, Nikolaos Panagopoulosa and Jessica Ogilviea

aDepartment of Marketing, University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA; bDepartment of Management,University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA

(Received 25 August 2013; accepted 21 March 2014)

Over the last several years, there has been increasing interest in a new sales training approach – referred to as theChallenger Sales model – to engage customers. This approach, focusing on purposefully generating tension with customersto spark new ways of thinking, has gained traction among leading sales organizations. Although generating tension withcustomers has received a great deal of interest, researchers have yet to complete a systematic, in-depth examination of theChallenger model. The purpose of this article is to provide a much needed comprehensive review and critique of theapproach. By conducting both an empirical and conceptual review of the framework, we offer insight into its novelty, meritsand weaknesses.

Keywords: Challenger Sales model; sales training; customer orientation; solution selling; salesperson knowledge; insightselling

As suppliers seek to sell ever bigger, more complex,disruptive, and expensive ‘solutions,’ B2B customers arenaturally buying with greater care and reluctance than everbefore, dramatically rewriting the purchasing playbook.(The Challenger Sale, Dixon and Adamson 2011, 6)

Never have truer words been spoken. With The GreatRecession now in our wake, buyers have been forced tore-evaluate their buying patterns and decision-makingprocesses (e.g., Piercy, Cravens, and Lane 2010). Whilethis observation is prima facie obvious, it is clear that tosome extent, salespeople also have had to modify thenature of their interactions with customers and keyaccounts (Jones et al. 2005; Lassk et al. 2012). Academicevidence (e.g., Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011) rein-forces the prevalence of this new sales paradigm.

For example, Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal (2011)reported meta-analytic evidence from 268 studies, on292 samples representing 79,747 salespeople from 4,317organizations, of a substantively different ranking of sales-performance drivers than meta-analytic evidence reportedby Churchill and colleagues in 1985. Churchill et al.(1985) reported the rank order of sales performancedeterminants (based on magnitude of relationships withsales performance) as: (1) role perceptions, (2) skill level,(3) aptitude, (4) motivation, (5) personal characteristicsand (6) organizational or environmental variables. Incontrast, using the same criteria, the more recent Verbeke,Dietz, and Verwaal (2011) study revealed a markedlydifferent rank order: (1) selling-related knowledge, (2)degree of adaptability, (3) role ambiguity, (4) cognitiveaptitude and (5) work engagement. Apparently,

salespeople are increasingly functioning as knowledge-brokers, whose job is to acquire knowledge about theirproducts and customers’ industries, dialogue with custo-mers to discover their expressed and unexpressed needs(Homburg, Wieseke, and Bornemann 2009) and to helpcustomers solve their problems through their products(Blocker et al. 2012).

In light of the now ubiquitous market constraintsinherent in the current business environment, it is notsurprising to see training developments emerging tosupport these changing dynamics (e.g., Lassk et al. 2012).Unfortunately, not all of these initiatives have a foundationgrounded with either the conceptual or empirical rigour ofthe meta-analyses noted above. Although the majority ofbooks and training seminars created to support changingmarketplace conditions are well-intentioned, they oftenmiss the mark with respect to satisfying actual marketplaceneeds. As companies engaged in the development and salesof training materials often do an outstanding job inmarketing their products, they quickly become the ‘hottesttrend’ or fad in the learning and development setting.

However, the reality of sales training may be lesssanguine, given evidence of disappointing results in bothacademic (e.g., Avlonitis and Panagopoulos 2007) andpractitioner studies (e.g., Salopek 2009). In fact, there isincreasing scepticism of the value of many trainingprogrammes (Cron et al. 2005). It is this reality thatmotivates our critical evaluation of the ‘Challenger Sale’model (Dixon and Adamson 2011), one of the mostrecent, high-profile training initiatives to gain traction inthe marketplace (e.g., CNBC 2012; Forbes 2012).

*Corresponding author. Email: arapp@cba.ua.edu

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2014Vol. 34, No. 4, 245–259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.908126

© 2014 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Following recent debates regarding the novelty andapplicability of the approach in both popular press (Brock2013; Farrington 2012; Richardson 2012) and academicoutlets (e.g., Plank and Reid 2012), our purpose is to offera systematic critique. As we demonstrate, while theChallenger Sales Model does not offer any new or novelinsight, it also is subject both to inherent empirical andconceptual limitations that actually represent fatal flaws.Importantly, though we wholeheartedly acknowledge theright of non-academicians to employ scientific proceduresto develop models, and offer them for sale, we alsomaintain that academicians retain the right – and, to someextent, are obliged by their role –both to thoroughlyinvestigate and to evaluate whether such models satisfythe norms of good science and practice. Towards this end,we begin with a brief review of changes in the currentselling landscape, and the consequent challenges faced bysalespeople prompting the introduction of the ChallengerSale. We then describe the empirical and conceptualfoundations of the model, and identify a series of flawsthat detract from the model’s utility.

Changes in the selling landscape

The topography of the sales landscape today is dynamic,evolving and uncertain (Dixon and Tanner 2012; Joneset al. 2005). The increasingly complex challenges sales-people contend with have prompted a professional focuson the development of new skills and competencies (Shethand Sharma 2008). The failure to adopt a forward-focused, development-oriented approach is to risk becom-ing obsolete. Customers today have considerably moretransactional power than customers of the past – primarilyas a consequence of the ubiquity of information andincreasing marketplace transparency. This power requiresan enhanced, deepened, more sophisticated understandingof customers’ needs prior to the sales call. Homburg,Wieseke, and Bornemann (2009), for instance, reportedthat frontline employees’ ability to accurately perceivecustomers’ needs is critical to achieving customer satis-faction and value. This power also places more demandson salespeople’s time and involves a more complicateddecision-making process (Jones et al. 2005). Conse-quently, the political dynamics associated with purchasingdecisions have increased in complexity coincident withthe heightened complexity of solutions being offered.

Today, salespeople are increasingly required to sell toan entire buying centre, in a matrix-form buying environ-ment, that necessitates significantly more versatile valuepropositions (e.g., Moon and Armstrong 1994; Weitz andBradford 1999). In addition, with increased time pres-sures, sales interactions simply cannot start with question-ing along broad vectors with a nexus at ‘tell me aboutyour business.’ A salesperson’s job is to be ‘the expert’and to behave like an expert, focusing on customers’

markets, as well as on ways to accrue value for customers(Thull 2010). Failure to generate value risks the emergentperception that interactions with salespeople are a wasteof time, reflecting ‘exchange inefficiency’ (Palmatieret al. 2008).

From the salesperson perspective, sales organizationshave introduced more complex offerings and solutions.They also have developed significantly higher internalexpectations for productivity (Jones et al. 2005) and cross-functional coordination (Steward et al. 2010). Thesedemands require smarter sales goals for the salesperson,the customer and, oftentimes, selling teams as well (Rappet al. 2010; Weitz and Bradford 1999). Salespeople haveto understand how to navigate both the customer’sorganization, as well as their own internal sales organiza-tion (Blocker et al. 2012; Plouffe and Barclay 2007).These changes have forced salespeople to become know-ledge brokers who transfer product knowledge and insightto customers to help them solve their own problems(Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011).

The challenger sales model: overview and foundations

The Challenger Sales model draws on the responses froma survey of frontline managers from 90 companies, eachof whom was asked to assess two average and one starperformer in their teams along 44 attributes (i.e., know-ledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours). The authorsinitially based their conclusions on a sample of 700salespeople, which has risen to more than 6000 salesrepresentatives. They used data generated from thesecollections to create a typology, or set of sales profiles,based on very specific attributes. The profiles were thenused to categorize salespeople according to how theyapproach the sales process. The authors reported that theiranalysis resulted in five categories including: (1) thechallenger, (2) the reactive problem-solver, (3) the rela-tionship-builder, (4) the lone wolf and (5) the hard worker.According to the authors, the challenger type outperformsthe rest of the profiles. The authors continue by outliningthe key skills within the Challenger Selling Model whichinclude creating constructive tension by: taking control ofthe sale, tailoring for resonance and teaching for differen-tiation (see Figure 1).

Merits

Before beginning our comprehensive review of theChallenger framework, it is here perhaps worthwhile alsoto review the merits of the proposed customer engagementapproach. Although it is our contention that there are awide range of substantive limitations associated with theconceptualization of the model and empirics upon which itis supported, three positive features of the model are

246 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

revealed upon close examination: (1) innovation, (2) therole of knowledge (3) and division within the sales force.

First, perhaps, the most potentially useful contributionof the Challenger sales approach is the innovation itsuggests with regard to the customer interaction. Theauthors offer the relatively novel proposal that salespeopleneed to ‘challenge’ their customers in an effort to spur adifferent way of thinking and create a new mindset forbuying. As sales researchers, our position is that sellingand customer interaction models that move beyond moretraditional approaches stimulate new thinking and debateamong practitioners and academics alike. The goal ofcreating a constructive tension between buyers and sellersin order to inspire conversation and potential debateappears promising as a first step towards considering newselling tactics and will benefit from further examination.

Second, the Challenger approach relies heavily on theprovision of insight to customers through an enhancedknowledge base. The importance of enhanced knowledgecannot be overemphasized. As suggested by recentresearch (Verbeke, Dietz, and Verwaal 2011), salespeoplehave developed into knowledge brokers where amongtheir primary roles is the dissemination of informationto customers as well as remaining abreast of currentmarketplace challenges that may affect customer businessoutcomes. The Challenger approach reinforces this foun-dational academic perspective, in that it is necessary tocreate an organization-level selling capability whichmanifests itself in knowledge, insight, proprietary sellingsheets, etc. The underlying element of this capabilityresides in advanced knowledge frameworks which canthen be leveraged by the salesperson.

Finally, the authors must be recognized for theirdiscussion of selling typologies. Although the creation ofsalesperson taxonomies is not new (e.g., Moncrief,Marshall, and Lassk 2006), these categories often areignored by researchers and training managers alike. It islogical – given broad individual differences – that a sales

force would be composed of distinct selling ‘personalities’and ‘styles’ that should be recognized. The sales typologyhas implications beyond the customer interaction, forareas such as training and salesperson selection. The focuson these distinctions by the Challenger authors may helpto draw attention to these within sales force differences.

Our review of this model suggests that althoughthere are merits of the Challenger approach, limitationsare apparent that substantially diminish the validity ofthe conclusions the authors seek to draw regarding themodel’s potency within this environment. Importantly, itshould be noted that our criticisms move beyond theabsence of novelty or insight and rather reflect funda-mental conceptual and empirical limitations that inher-ently limit the development of the Challenger profile andthe utility of the Challenger approach (see Table 1 for asummary of these limitations). To initiate the critique ofthe Challenger Sales model, we first describe and elabor-ate on the conceptual limitations of the model.

Conceptual critique

The role of customer relationship building

As a broad, unifying theme in our critique, what is clear isthat the Challenger model is reflective of a philosophyendemic to the world of pre-relational selling (Weitz andBradford 1999). For example, a first core tenet underlyingthe model is that building relationships with customers isessentially unimportant. The authors write, “The ChallengerSale argues that classic relationship building is a losingapproach, especially when it comes to selling complex,large-scale business-to-business solutions” (Dixon andAdamson 2011, inside book jacket). This characterizationreflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the importanceof relationship building within the modern sales role, andrepresents a view that is diametrically antithetical tocurrent realities of both sales practice and academicresearch (e.g., Homburg, Bornemann, and Kretzer 2014;

Figure 1. Skills within the challenger selling model.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Homburg, Müller, and Klarmann 2011; Narayandas andRangan 2004; Palmatier, Scheer, and Steenkamp 2007).

Several conceptual and empirical streams of evidencesubstantiate this thesis. First, the emergent paradigm inmarketing thought and practice, the service-dominantlogic (SDL) (Vargo and Lusch 2004), provides thatmarketing is inherently customer-oriented (Hoffmann andIngram 1992) and relational. Relationships betweenbuyers and sellers constitute one of the three, centralchallenges in the marketing discipline. According to SDL,customers constitute an operant resource, and as such, thefocus of marketing is the co-creation of value. Co-creationis fundamentally embedded within relational processesand dialogue between salespeople and buyers. Definition-ally, value is co-created with customers (Vargo and Lusch2004, 2008) through a series of encounters during whichbuyers and sellers jointly learn and act on opportunities(Blocker et al. 2012; Payne, Storbacka, and Frow 2008).Moreover, value co-creation requires functional interac-tions with key accounts and complex buying centrescomprising cross-functional groups of buyers (Sharma,Iyer, and Evanschitzky 2008). This intense interpersonalcontext necessitates the development of multiplex tieswith customer organizations (Tuli, Bharadwaj, and Kohli2010) and effective management of the tensions createdwithin the buying centre (Blocker et al. 2012).

Second, recent meta-analytic evidence (Palmatier et al.2006) of over 38,000 respondents offers strong evidencethat (a) relationship marketing plays a significant role inrelationship quality and objective seller performance, and(b) strategies focused on building interpersonal relation-ships are critical for generating sales outcomes. Thiscoincides with the observed importance of rapport build-ing for salesperson performance documented in neu-roscience research (Dietvorst et al. 2009) employingfunctional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Finally, recent research also highlights the fact thatcustomers tend to have a relational process view ofsolutions whereby a solution ‘is an ongoing, relationalprocess of defining, meeting, and supporting a customer’sevolving needs’ (Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj 2007, 5).Thus, it is clear that building customer relationships iscrucial for the development of solutions that createcustomer value (Blocker et al. 2012; Tuli, Kohli, andBharadwaj 2007).

Solution selling conceptualization

A second core tenet of the Challenger Sales model is thatsolution sales has come to an end (Adamson, Dixon, andToman 2012). As the authors note, customer ‘companiescan readily define solutions for themselves’ and ‘thecelebrated ‘solution sales rep’ can be more of an

Table 1. Summary of conceptual and empirical limitations of the challenger sales model.

Conceptual limitations Description

The role of customerrelationship building

Argues that the building of customer relationships is unimportant. Reflective of a fundamentalmisunderstanding of the importance of relationship building.

Solution sellingconceptualization

Presents that solution selling is dead and the approach is seen as an annoyance. Misconception of thedefinition or solution selling and what it actually entails.

Salesperson credibility No consideration of the importance and value of salesperson credibility. To create customer tensionand adopt this new approach, credibility and trust is essential.

Complex vs. fast-movingmarkets

Suggestive that the model is most appropriate in complex and fast-moving markets. A complex marketis typically much slower moving which presents issues of applicability.

Customer lifetime value Maintains that salespeople should target individuals positioned to make quick decision, ignoringramifications of CLV. Cannot ignore high value accounts because of slower decision-cycle times.

Conceptualization of challengerprofile

Items used to characterize Challenger profile are problematic. Items are directly reflective of a COapproach. Not clear that final item, generating tension and pressure, is a sound strategy nor is alignedwith other scale items.

Empirical limitations Description

Causality Holds that sales success is derived from adoption of specific behaviours. Empirically unsupportable ascausal with cross-sectional data collected with profile identification.

Mutual exclusivity Suggestive that five profiles are mutually exclusive. Authors use inappropriate statistical techniquesand ignore likelihood of membership in multiple profiles.

Salesperson profilecharacteristics

Five profile types presented are suggested to link to different performance outcomes. By ignoringpotential cross-membership, authors do not consider that greater overall proportions of variance inperformance may be accounted for by a different profile type across all categories.

Sales performanceoperationalization

Managers were asked to rate employees as average or star performer. This approach relies on asupplier-centric rather than a customer-centric viewpoint. Directly counter to author’s point thatsuccess is measured by performance of customer’s business, not supplier’s products.

248 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

annoyance than an asset’ (62). We contend that this viewreflects a fundamental misconception of business realitywhich does not correspond with how solutions are definedwithin the constraints of the modern sales context.Specifically, the authors propose that ‘Under the conven-tional solution-selling methodology that has prevailedsince the 1980s, salespeople are trained to align a solutionwith an acknowledged customer need, and demonstratewhy it is better than the competition’s’ (62).

However, in contradiction with this stipulation, Tuli,Kohli and Bharadwaj (2007) argued that customer solu-tions are defined entirely differently. These authorspropose that solution development involves four cus-tomer-supplier relational processes, the first of whichorbits ‘customer requirements definition.’ As Tuli et al.argued, ‘customers frequently are not fully cognizant oftheir business needs and cannot easily articulate them to asupplier …. [thus] requirements definition involves delin-eating a customer’s current and future needs’ (7).

It is clear that solution selling involves understandingand defining not only expressed needs, as Adamson,Dixon and Toman (2012) suggest, but also customers’latent and even emerging needs (Blocker et al. 2012).Clearly, the Adamson, Dixon and Toman (2012) view isan exaggerated characterization that does not coincidewith either market reality or research evidence. Rather, theAdamson et al. characterization is applicable to situationswhere customers have already defined their problem.However, this subset of situations is not broadly repres-entative, and also is not descriptive of actual solutionselling, which involves both buyers and sellers workingcollaboratively to co-create value (Tuli, Kohli, andBharadwaj 2007; Vargo and Lusch 2004).

Salesperson credibility

A third conceptual critique of the Challenger modelconcerns the issue of salesperson credibility. The onlyway that selling with insight can be leveraged is if thesalesperson has personal credibility with the customer.Credibility emerges as a function of expertise (i.e., theextent to which the salesperson has knowledge, experi-ence or topic-specific skills; Lagace, Dahlstrom, andGassenheimer 1991) and trustworthiness (Liu and Leach2001). If a salesperson is armed with credibility, which,importantly emerges from relationship building (see Liuand Leach 2001; Wood, Boles, and Babin 2008b), it ispossible that the challenger could facilitate the movementof solutions. This is because credibility leads to thedevelopment of quality relationships (Crosby, Evans, andCowles 1990) and buyer trust (e.g., Doney and Cannon1997; Liu and Leach 2001; Newell et al. 2011; Wood,Boles, and Babin 2008a) which is strongly valued bycustomers within the context of solutions selling (Töllner,Blut, and Holzmüller 2011).

The vast majority of the salespeople within any givenfirm are unlikely to have these tools at their disposal.Sales professionals often rely on factors such as firmreputation and willingness to customize products toinfluence perceptions of salespeople’s expertise and trust-worthiness (Doney and Cannon 1997) and thus theircredibility. The Challenger Sales model provides that atits core a salesperson should generate tension withprospects (Brown 2001; Lay, Hewlin, and Moore 2009;Fennis, Das, and Pruyn 2004). But without the requisitecredibility, this tactic will face resistance from thecustomer. More importantly, this failure is likely to bemore extreme when dealing with new prospects, as asalesperson will not have developed sufficient (or any)relational social capital or credibility to fall back on (e.g.,Weitz 1981; Wood, Boles, and Babin 2008a). Indeed,previous research reveals that the impact of interpersonalinteractions on organizational outcomes is time- andcontext-dependent. Information exchange norms, buyer’strust and willingness to take risks are lowest during theexploration phase of relationship development (Jap andAnderson 2007). However, there is an inherent conceptualdisconnect between the nature of the deployment of thechallenger profile and what social resources are actuallyrequired for the approach to have any chance of beingdeployed effectively.

Challenging prospects does not occur in a vacuum.When a salesperson challenges a prospect – particularly anew prospect – there is a strong potential for distrust anddissatisfaction to emerge, as well as the subjectiveimpression that conventional transactional boundarieshave been overstepped (see Jap 2001). For the ChallengerSales model to be used effectively, relational capitalstemming from the relationship builder profile is func-tionally core to the Challenger Sales approach. Again, thisbelies the authors’ assertion that the five categories areconceptually orthogonal, and supports our contention thatsecondary approaches are likely to account for more salesvariation than the challenger profile alone. The return tothe pre-relational sale the authors advocate is incongruouswith the model’s constraints.

Complex vs. fast-moving markets

In an extension of their book outlining the Challengermodel, Adamson, Dixon, and Toman (2012) authored aHarvard Business Review article which extends theirthoughts on the model. A point the authors highlight isthat their model is likely to have its most profound impactwithin complex and fast-moving market cycles. Realistic-ally, however, the application of the Challenger approachwithin this context is untenable, as the effective integra-tion of complex and fast-moving cycles is dissonant.Introducing a complex market frame, such as a multi-individual buying centre, it is prohibitively difficult to

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

engage these complex and fast-moving cycles. The morecomplexity introduced into the buying situation, the moreslowly the cycle resolves itself (Dhar, Menon, and Maach2004; Plouffe, Nelson, and Beuk 2013). The incompatib-ility between complexity and decision speed is observedin other areas of research such as operations management,where the inherent tension between operational leanness(i.e., efficiency) and agility (i.e., responsiveness) has beenwell documented (e.g., Narasimhan, Swink, and Kim2006; Zahra, Sapienza, and Davidsson 2006). The Chal-lenger Sales model inherently increases the level ofcomplexity central to a buying centre or buying interac-tion. The notion that this model could be effectivelydeployed in a context where speed is a fundamentalcriterion is at odds with challenger’s constraints, as wedescribe below.

Within complex and fast-moving cycles, it is difficultto gain sufficient insight into the marketplace to deploythe model systematically. Insight selling cannot happenunless the organization invests substantial resources insupport of its underlying knowledge capital fuel. It is onlythe organization itself that can generate the capability,through resource investment, to generate and deployinsight and knowledge for distribution to the sales force.However, before even considering adoption of theapproach, the organization must determine what types ofcustomers are targeted, and the fit between their potentialneeds and their sales force to determine whether thismodel has sufficient future potential utility to justify thesignificant capital investment it represents – all of whichtakes time.

Customer lifetime value

A fifth conceptual limitation centres on the issue ofcustomer lifetime value (CLV) or the monetary value ofa customer’s patronage over time (Blocker et al. 2012). Agreat deal of academic research and popular press cover-age over the past decade has focused on the importance ofcustomer valuation (e.g., Rust, Lemon, and Zeithaml2004; Venkatesan and Kumar 2004). This criterion centresaround the idea that salespeople should target and focustheir efforts on higher performing customers, and thoseprospects offering longer lifetime value and profits(Blocker et al. 2012; Jain and Singh 2002).

As practitioners (and increasingly academics as well)are aware, there has been a fundamental shift in the way inwhich customers are both targeted and sourced. Theadoption and growth of the key account managementconcept buoys the fact the firms are increasingly focusedon the development and retention of accounts andprospects offering the greatest potential value (Bradfordet al. 2012; Reinartz and Kumar 2000; Venkatesan andKumar 2004). A significant limitation of the Challengermodel is that it essentially ignores CLV.

Specifically, as deployed, the authors maintain thatsalespeople should target individuals positioned to makequick decisions in turbulent environments (Adamson,Dixon, and Toman 2012). However, as most key accountdecision-makers operate in a matrix or buying centreenvironment (e.g., Homburg, Workman Jr, and Jensen2002), decisions regarding significant capital expenditurescannot be made in an expedited way. The decision toignore these accounts is extremely financially perilous. Itwould be devastating to firm profits to ignore prospectsmerely because they didn’t have the capacity to makequick decisions. As these key accounts typically representmore than 80% of a firm’s business (e.g., Bradford et al.2012; Piercy and Lane 2006), the Challenger approach issimply not applicable to these high potential valuebusiness-to-business interactions.

Conceptualization of challenger profile

The sixth fundamental limitation of the Challenger Salesapproach centres on the conceptual underpinnings of thescale items (i.e., attributes) the authors use to define thechallenger profile. As the authors note (Dixon andAdamson 2011, 23), a challenger salesperson is character-ized by the following six attributes: (1) Offers thecustomer unique perspectives; (2) Has strong two-waycommunication skills; (3) Knows the individual custo-mer’s value drivers; (4) Can identify economic drivers ofthe customer’ business; (5) Is comfortable discussingmoney (6) Can pressure the customer. A close review ofthese items reveals the presence of two issues.

First, the first four items relate directly to the customerorientation (CO) approach developed in the 1980s (Saxeand Weitz 1982), while the last two items are morereflective of the selling orientation (SO) approach(Thomas, Soutar, and Ryan 2001; Periatt, LeMay, andChakrabarty 2004). As noted by Bagozzi et al. (2012),SO ‘involves persuasion’ and ‘selling to customers’,whereas … CO is more about ‘interacting with andencouraging customers to talk about their problems sothat the salesperson can figure out their needs (a processakin to co-creation of solutions) and bring them in touchwith solutions to their problems’ (659). As identified inresearch published decades ago, the selling orientation-customer orientation (i.e., SOCO) literature is a well-researched area. Researchers on the topic have offeredreviews and critiques of all of these behaviours (e.g.,Franke and Park 2006).

For example, two-way communication skill is anattribute recognized for decades in the sales researcharea (e.g., Castleberry and Shepherd 1993; Williams andSpiro 1985). The ability to identify value and economicdrivers of customer’s business (e.g., Sharma, Iyer, andEvanschitzky 2008), help customers identify problems innew ways (e.g., Rackham and DeVincentis 1998) and

250 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

identify new alternatives for customers (Weitz and Bradford1999) also have been widely evaluated in the literature. Assuch, other than applying a different label, the ‘challenger’profile offers no new insight or information to eitheracademics or practitioners. Indeed, as James (2013) noted,this is merely a repackaging of old material. It is actuallyonly the sixth item that is generating the most attention,and which also is perhaps the most controversial, leadingto the next important issue in the challenger profile.

Specifically, it is simply not clear that generatingtension and pressure, particularly with new prospects, issound strategy. The authors of the Challenger approachcontend that star salespeople actually engage in suchbehaviours by adopting a view that customers ‘often don’tknow how to buy’ and so reps need to lead and ‘teach thecustomer how to buy the solution’ (124). According to theauthors, such approaches are valued by customers‘because they see the challenger as a confident partner inthe sales process’ (125). Of course, this view reflects anaive understanding of modern sales reality, particularly inlight of the complex, sophisticated buying centres incustomer organizations today (McDonald, Rogers, andWoodburn 2000).

Customers seek more than just confidence in theirinteractions with salespeople (Steenburgh, Ahearne, andCorsi 2012). In fact, conventional wisdom (e.g., Schultz2013) as well as overwhelming empirical research sug-gests the contrary: salespeople need to adopt low-pressure,customer-oriented selling techniques (Bursk 2006; Frankeand Park 2006; Shannahan, Bush, and Shannahan 2013;Zablah et al. 2012). The command-control context of salesinteractions whereby the salesperson controls the conver-sation, influences customer choice, and views the cus-tomer as a hurdle is increasingly outdated. The return topre-relational, high pressure tactics has been shown toresult in decreased customer satisfaction and trust (e.g.,Kennedy, Ferrell, and LeClair 2001; Romàn and Ruiz2005). As Dixon and Tanner (2012) succinctly noted, ‘Webelieve that the influence of military language (conquerthe territory, execute the sale) must be replaced by newlanguage and metaphors representing the new environ-ment in which sales occurs. Salespeople must collaborate,not conquer’ (12). Pressuring customers is not reflectiveof modern sales reality, where information primarily flowsfrom the customer (Shannahan, Bush, and Shannahan2013).

Empirical critique

Causality

The first empirical criticism of the Challenger Sales modelfocuses on the question of causality. The model explicitlyholds that sales success is derived from the adoption ofparticular tactical behavioural profiles. Specifically, theauthors take an empirically unsupportable conceptual leap

in drawing the causal inference that these behaviouralprofile types are responsible for – or cause – differentlevels of sales performance. However, it is critical here toacknowledge that these behavioural profiles were identi-fied and established post hoc. That is, the performance ofthe salespersons falling within a category was historicalfact prior to profile identification. The major challengehere is that the sequence in which the performance andbehavioural tactics data were collected does not allow forthe development of causal inferences regarding perform-ance variation. Rather, one would need to collect time-lagged (or longitudinal) performance data to untanglecausal relationships (Rindfleisch et al. 2008). Empirically,reverse causality is entirely possible – and indeed probable– in that different levels of sales success lead to thebehavioural profiles.

For example, if an organization has a successful lonewolf, it is very possible that this individual became a lonewolf because of his success, and had a desire to separatehimself from the pack. There are consequences associatedwith individuals’ success that lead to the adoption of anindividual working style, which then further complementstheir success. Indeed, it is possible that sales successprovides insights that contribute to the emergence ofdistinct sales profiles. Importantly, the reversed-sequenceddata collection for sales performance and behaviouralcategories the authors report holds for all five of theprofiles described – the relationship builder for example.When a salesperson makes a sale, and then decides tospend more time with that prospect to build the relation-ship – to leverage cross-selling or up-selling opportunities,focusing on loyalty and retention issues – the sales successis responsible for the adoption of a relational salesorientation.

This empirical issue becomes relevant conceptually inconsideration of the claims the authors make regarding thesales potency of the Challenger profile. Prior researchreveals that it is plausible, and indeed probable amongexperienced salespeople, that a successful salespersongleans insights and knowledge from successful past inter-actions (e.g., Sujan, Sujan, and Bettman 1988; Szymanski1988; Weitz, Sujan, and Sujan 1986), and leverages thisknowledge to practice adaptive selling (Spiro and Weitz1990), improving sales performance (Franke and Park2006).

Recent research also reveals that customers that aresatisfied with their salesperson, and are pleased with theirrelationship, are more likely to share competitive intelli-gence (Hughes, Le Bon, and Rapp 2013) and knowledgeof ways in which products have benefitted their firm. As aconsequence of the passage of time and prior salespersonbehaviours, information and insight are shared. This raisesquestions as to the issue of causality assumed in themodel, and introduces a fundamental temporal confoundwhich is ignored by the Challenger authors.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 251

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

At best, cyclical reciprocal causation is present, suchas when a salesperson has some success with a customer,which leads to the sharing of insights and information,which is then used in future dealings with customers.Here, we do not argue that the tactical application ofinsight and information is a poor strategy. In fact, webelieve that the opposite is true – the application of insightis likely to be associated with sales success. However,although the authors maintain that insight drives salessuccess, encouraging the use of insight may not lead toincreased sales.

Notwithstanding the position maintained by the Chal-lenger authors, our goal is to draw attention to theincorrectly addressed issue of causality. The empirics onwhich the model is based offer an unsound analyticalfoundation for the systematic development of tacticalprescription that the authors seek to sell. Thus, ignoring,or even devaluing, the four discounted tactical approachesdescribed in the book is likely to undermine the develop-ment of an effective training approach. Building a trainingprogramme heavily around the Challenger model wouldappear to be a tactically unsound development strategy,particularly for a sales force that would (and potentiallyhas) benefit from an entirely different set of behaviouraltactics.

Mutual exclusivity

The authors also seek to offer a clean, conceptuallydifferentiable set of behavioural profiles to organizations,in order to institute the ‘most effective’ sales approach.However, although the authors try to lead readers to theconclusion that these profiles are distinct from oneanother, it is precisely the issue of the potential relation-ships between the profile types that underlies our secondempirical criticism of the model. Specifically, the authorsreport that they ran a factor analysis to determine how thesalesperson attributes group. Although it is unclear whythey used factor analysis here (i.e., rather than clusteranalysis which would have been the correct technique toemploy in this context, an issue we address below), usingthis approach they report to have arrived at five, distinctprofile types. It is very likely, however, that cross-loadingsor double-factor loadings were present in the data, as isoverwhelmingly present within factor analysis (Hair et al.2010, 119).

In presenting the results from their analysis in thisway, the authors have tried to cultivate the impression thatthese categories are mutually exclusive, and that therotation of these factors is orthogonal (i.e., pristine) ratherthan oblique (i.e., related). Stated somewhat differently,from the description the authors reported, if an item usedto reflect one of the profiles fell under the challengerprofile, then it did not also fall under the hard-worker orrelationship builder (or other) category as well.

Researchers accustomed to interpreting empirical analysis,or reviewers of research submitted to professional,academic journals publishing empirical research alike,are likely to join us in our reaction to these assumptionsas appearing potentially flawed. This kind of statisticalpristineness appears difficult to achieve.

Beyond the issue of outlandish improbability, theunderlying question really pertains to how these categorieswere actually delineated. If an item used to reflect acategory did not have a ‘clean’ factor loading, and actuallydouble-loaded on two (or more) profiles (which likelygoes without question to any professional researcher),which profiles earned that item? Unfortunately, theauthors do not provide this information. The authors alsoprovide no evidence, or description to substantiate theemergence of these putatively orthogonal categories.Without a detailed description of their analytical approach,it is unclear on what basis readers are to develop anyconfidence that these factors coincide in any systematicway to an academic standard of statistical rigour, or thatthe psychometric properties (i.e., reliability and validity)of the underlying scales are legitimate. These questionsremain unanswered.

Profile characteristics

The issue of exclusivity also has substantive, derivativeconsequences for understanding ‘performance’ in themodel. In and of themselves, the five ‘profile types’ theauthors articulate are just that, merely different categorieswhich may or may not fall uniquely within a conceptualboundary. What they do not do, but which is necessary tounderstand where these profile boundaries meaningfullyfall, is to demonstrate the link between these profiles toperformance by bisecting measurable performance vari-ance accounted for. In this vein, three potential flaws areapparent in the analysis as it is described.

First, because the authors maintain that the categoriesare orthogonal, they fail to stipulate what proportion ofvariation in sales success is attributable to these obliquecharacterizations (i.e., profiles). They do not allow that aproportion of the performance variation they attribute tothe challenger profile, for example, may in fact beaccounted for by the lone wolf profile, or hard-workerprofile. However, it is very likely, notwithstanding theauthors’ (from our perspective) untenable position that thefive profiles represent orthogonal sales approaches, that asignificant percentage of performance variation attributedto the challenger profile is actually accounted for by therelational approach, lone wolf approach, hard-workerapproach, etc.

Ultimately, the authors leave unanswered the questionof what proportion of variation in the ‘outstandingperformance’ category is accounted for by these second-ary classifications. It is unclear whether – and to what

252 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

degree – these profiles are uniquely associated withperformance, and to what degree this association masksan unreported (or worse, an unmeasured) associationaccounted for by other, related profiles. The percentageof sales performance these profiles account for is aquestion that is simply left unanswered.

Second, as noted above, salespersons whose beha-viours and characteristics coincide with the category labelsthe authors report (via the factor analysis they conducted)should in fact be determined through a cluster analysis.While factor analysis is used to group items (such asattitudes, skills, and behaviours), cluster analysis isutilized to group objects (i.e., sales representatives in thiscase). Similar to other scientific fields such as biology,astronomy or medicine, cluster analysis – rather thanfactor analysis – is the appropriate analytical technique togenerate a numerically derived taxonomy (Hambrick1984; Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings 1993).

Indeed, prior work in the sales domain has employedcluster analysis to derive configurations of marketing andsales (Homburg, Jensen, and Krohmer 2008), generatetaxonomies of sales positions (Moncrief, Marshall, andLassk 2006) and identify prototypical key account man-agement approaches (Homburg, Workman, and Jensen2002). In these studies, factor analysis is employed toderive a reduced set of theoretically meaningful variables(i.e., attitudes, skills, behaviours, etc.) which is then usedas input in cluster analysis to generate profiles. Theapplication of factor analysis to generate profiles (ortypes) is inappropriate. Because it is not plausible thatall of the salespeople in the sample serving as thefoundation for the model fall exclusively under onecategory, this leaves the question on how were thesemulti-cluster individuals “categorized” unanswered.

There is a great deal of opacity present in theseanalyses, on which the fundamental conceptualization anddevelopment of the model rests precariously. Although theauthors attempt to offer a clean distinction between theprofiles they report, it is simply much more likely thatthere are secondary, underlying profiles that tend tosystematically co-vary, and that account for, in isolation,more performance variation than any of the other profiletypes in isolation. For example, although the authors donot provide sufficient transparency for our speculation tobe confirmed or disconfirmed, it is likely that the hard-worker is a secondary profile type that co-varies with allof the other categories among star performers. It also islikely that this profile type (although perhaps secondary innature) accounts for a larger percentage of performancevariance combined than is accounted for by the challengerprofile.

Had cluster analysis been employed, different profileswould have emerged. Star performers would score eitherhigh or low on specific dimensions such as being a lonewolf, building relationships with customers, working hard,

etc. This speculation is supported by research revealingsignificant correlations between effort and sales perform-ance (e.g., Hughes 2013). Our conclusion is that theauthors have artificially constrained the high-performancesegment of the sample to fall under the challengercategory.

Third, regardless of the type of analysis that shouldhave been employed, it is critical, here, to inject twocritical notes of caution. Both cluster analysis and factoranalysis will always produce a solution, regardless of thepresence of any systematic structure in the data. So, thesolution that emerges may not be generalizable (Hair et al.2010). Thus, a conceptually supportable approach towardsthe selection of variables is an issue of critical importancewhen employing either analytical technique. Further, inlight of the fact that a ‘solution’ will always emerge, had adifferent set of variables been included in the initialanalysis, an entirely different solution is likely to haveemerged (Hair et al. 2010). Obviously, it is essential toground these decisions within a sound conceptual frame-work to arrive at a solution that is both meaningful andgeneralizable.

However, here, it is extremely difficult to evaluatewhether a grounded, systematic approach was adopted.Although the variables that constitute the “input” side ofthe factor analysis are reflective of theoretical constructsthat are potentially causally linked, they were not treatedas such. For example, it is well established, for instance –even foundational within social psychology – that percep-tions lead to the formation of attitudes, which, in turn, leadto behavioural intentions and behaviours (e.g., Ajzen andFishbein 1980; Bagozzi 1982; Liska 1984; Millar andMillar 1990). Readers of the Challenger Sales model arenecessarily left to wonder whether the Challenger profileis primarily a function of attitudes towards the job andcustomers, knowledge of products, behaviours performedin the job, or a statistical artefact of an incompletelyspecified analytical model and misapplied empiricalapproach.

Sales performance operationalization

The final empirical limitation orbits the issue of how theauthors defined and operationalized sales performance.The authors report that frontline sales managers wereasked to assess two average performers and one starperformer with respect to performance against goal(Dixon and Adamson 2011, 16). From this, salesperson‘performance’ in the model was based on the definitionand approach that suppliers employed at the time ofsurvey, thus explicitly reflecting a supplier-centric (ratherthan customer-centric) performance outcome.

Given the nature of the goals putatively associatedwith adoption of the Challenger approach, this perform-ance issue represents perhaps the most serious fatal flaw in

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 253

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

the empirical model. The authors attest ‘in the world ofcomplex solutions, supplier success is often measuredby the performance of the customer’s business, not thesupplier’s products’ (Dixon and Adamson 2011, 9).However, the performance implications of the five profilesthe authors report are derived from an extremely narrow,supplier-centric operationalization which is not reflectiveof how customers respond to each of the five types. Theempirical approach fails to coincide with the conceptualmodel the authors advance. Simply, the analysis theauthors report does not bear in any direct way on therelationship between the Challenger model and the kind ofperformance outcomes they maintain it facilitates. As aconsequence of this empirical misspecification, the resultsof the Challenger Sales study have extremely limitedapplication within solution-selling environments wherevalue is co-created with customers (e.g., Blocker et al.2012; Vargo and Lusch 2004).

The importance of creating an organizational levelcapability

Although not a critique within this review, a final issuethat we would like to draw attention to is that what theChallenger model describes is, inherently, an organiza-tional-level capability. As such, in a fundamental sense, itrequires development and support at the firm level inorder for an individual salesperson, or a team of sales-people, to be positioned to engage insight processes.While this foundational organizational-level issue is dis-cussed by Dixon and Adamson (2011), it is simply an areathat cannot receive enough attention. Individual sales-people can develop insight, and may act as challengers.However, in order to generate adoption of this approachby an entire sales force, or train on this from theperspective of selling style, it is essential to have firm-level adoption.

The Challenger approach is simply not tractable withinthe context of individually focused training, or that anindividual salesperson or sales force could benefit from ina systematic way. This approach requires a significantinstitutional leveraging of both knowledge and know-ledge-distribution resources. A department devoted exclu-sively to the generation of insight is a critical precursor toany adoption of the Challenger approach. The department,in this case, would necessarily encompass budget and staffallocated exclusively to learning, and human resources orpersonnel with an explicit core responsibility to developinsights that the sales force would then be positioned todeploy and bring to the customer. The translation of theinsights generated by this department also would requirean internal diffusion mechanism so that these insightscould be efficiently disseminated to the salesperson, whoonly then would be able to translate these to the customer.It can only be through the development of an

organization-level capacity for a sales team, as thedelivery mechanism for the insight generated by thedepartment that created the insight, that the ChallengerSales model has potential to become useful.

Contingency factors

As mentioned previously, it is our position that theChallenger framework has several empirical and concep-tual weaknesses that diminish the potential performanceimplications of the model and mitigate its value. However,it is possible that modification and future refinement of themodel could potentially lead to the development of a moreviable approach, where challenging the customer andgenerating tension to promote discussion to facilitate theinteraction would have some utility. However, ultimately,this would require the incorporation of several criticalfactors. Consistent with theory emphasizing a contingencyapproach (Weitz 1981), there are individual characteris-tics, behavioural approaches and organizational factorsthat are likely to play a role. Below we outline examplesof such factors that could influence the implementation ofa Challenger-like approach.

We frame these facilitators within a KSA (knowledge,skills and ‘organizational’ abilities) structure to groundcatalysts of approach success within a recognized inter-personal performance framework (Stevens and Campion1994). Knowledge represents a body of information whichcan be applied to the performance of a particular function.Skill is an observed or observable competence associatedwith the performance of a task-related activity. Finally,ability (or as we’ve framed it below, organizationalcompetence) is an aptitude to execute observable beha-viours or behaviours that ultimately result in an observableproduct.

First, and perhaps most importantly, a critical indi-vidual difference characteristic that could influence out-comes associated with the implementation of theChallenger sales approach is knowledge. As we highlightthroughout this review, it is essential that the salespersonacts as a knowledge broker with a knowledge platformthat encompasses the customer, competitors, their salesorganization and the market environment. It is vital thatthe salesperson has a knowledge repository with bothdepth and breadth. This knowledge provides the salesper-son with the opportunity to demonstrate credibility anddevelop trust. To a certain extent, this knowledge, whichis in part representative of past experience, creates a typeof Challenger Readiness. This concept emerges fromAhearne, Mathieu and Rapp (2005), who introduce thenotion of empowerment readiness, where only certainemployees are prepared to be empowered by management.This empowerment readiness construct is representative ofboth knowledge and experience which is likely to emergeas Challenger Readiness within this model.

254 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Second, skill at adaptive selling, a sales behaviourwhich also has a substantive impact on performance, iscritical. Stemming from extensive knowledge of customerand sales situation types, adaptive selling is the ability totailor messages to individual customers and make on-the-spot adjustments in approach (Spiro and Weitz 1990). Wepropose that salespeople that have the skill to adapt tobuying situations and circumstances also are more likelyto be in a position to effectively leverage the ChallengerModel. As there are buying interactions where a challen-ging-type approach is more or less likely to resonate withcustomers, an adaptive seller can recognize this fit andshift their behaviour and message accordingly. Further,skill in adaptive selling also facilitates the recognition thatin more complex situations, where the buying cycle islonger, there is greater potential for higher customer value.The adaptive sellers can then adapt their approach to targetthese customers, in addition to those suggested by theChallenger approach.

It is also important to note that without substantialorganizational investments in knowledge infrastructure,this approach is destined for failure. The Challengerapproach requires a specific type of salesperson withparticular characteristics. However, it also requires theability to leverage insights, and that the organizationprovides support, training, and development of the know-ledge structures and tools necessary to create an over-arching organizational capability. Without this support,this organizational capability, at the highest levels in theorganization, a sales force would be hard-pressed to enlistChallenger behaviours with success. Although we assumethat rare individuals might be able to adopt these practicesin any environment, the overwhelming majority of thesales force would be unable to leverage it without anorganizational capability in place.

There are likely countless factors that are required forsuccessful implementation of this Challenger approach.Importantly, some of these factors exist on the customerside of the relationship. Foremost, we expect that iftargeted customers are not willing to engage in thediscussion, the approach will not work. A willingness toengage and an openness to change are critical, given thenature of the salesperson’s ‘challenge’. Considering thatthe Challenger approach is taken in an effort to spark anew and innovative mindset for the buyer, the customermust inherently be open to the possibility of a change inthinking. Moreover, the Challenger model rests on theprovision of knowledge and insights to customers. Thus,an orientation towards learning would likely characterizethose customers more receptive to salesperson knowledgedissemination as characterized by the Challengerapproach. Therefore, customers demonstrating a willing-ness to engage, an openness to change and a learningorientation would create a buying situation conducive tothe merits of the Challenger approach.

Additionally, we suggest that salespeople who sell tobuyers operating in complex buying centres with multipleparticipants will see limited success with the implementa-tion of the Challenger approach. We argue that withinmulti-person buying scenarios, much more complicateddiscussions evolve when several people play a role in thebuying conversations. With multiple buyers, a salesper-son’s decision to challenge the customer and createtension may be received poorly, considering interpersonaldynamics at play within the situation. In a situation inwhich multiple buyers can openly discuss the merits andfaults of the interaction among themselves, the salespersonis open to critiques that may be shared by one member ofthe buying centre and then reinforced by others. Particu-larly in response to tension, such as that created by asalesperson’s initial ‘challenge’, the buyers will be moreinclined to find fault in the knowledge shared by asalesperson. Further, in the presence of amplified tensionin the buying situation with multiple buyers, there mayexist a stronger desire to support colleagues against thesalesperson creating further, unhealthy tension in thesituation.

Conclusion

Without exception, new thoughts, tools and models willbe introduced with the promise of helping managersimprove performance. Academics often bear the burdenof subjecting these approaches to rigorous scientificinvestigation. Indeed, there is a rich tradition of academicstesting models that dominate the world of practice.Reinartz and Kumar (2000) for instance showed thatReichheld and Sasser’s (1990) assertion that retainedcustomers are more profitable over time does not holdtrue in non-contractual settings. Following this tradition,we offer a comprehensive empirical and conceptualcritique of the Challenger Sales approach. While we fullysupport the idea of providing insight to the customer, wesuspect that practicing salespeople and academics alikewill continue to evaluate whether there is utility ingenerating tension and applying pressure. This approach,reflective of an outdated, sales-oriented tactical approach,may face substantive challenges within the context ofmodern solution selling. We hope that this critiquegenerates a lively discourse that provides greater transpar-ency into the issues that we have identified as theshortcomings of the Challenger Sales approach.

ReferencesAdamson, Brent, Matthew Dixon, and Nicholas Toman. 2012.

“The End of Solution Sales.” Harvard Business Review90 (7/8): 60–68.

Ahearne, Michael, John Mathieu, and Adam Rapp. 2005. “ToEmpower or Not to Empower Your Sales Force? AnEmpirical Examination of the Influence of LeadershipEmpowerment Behavior on Customer Satisfaction and

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 255

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (5): 945–957. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.945.

Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein. 1980. Understanding Attitudesand Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Avlonitis, George J., and Nikolaos G. Panagopoulos. 2007.“Exploring the Influence of Sales Management Practices onthe Industrial Salesperson: A Multi-source HierarchicalLinear Modeling Approach.” Journal of Business Research60 (7): 765–775. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.02.011.

Bagozzi, Richard P. 1982. “A Field Investigation of CausalRelations among Cognitions, Affect, Intentions, and Beha-vior.” Journal of Marketing Research 19 (4): 562–583.doi:10.2307/3151727.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Willem J. M. I. Verbeke, Wouter E. van denBerg, Wim J. R. Rietdijk, Roeland C. Dietvorst, and LoekWorm. 2012. “Genetic and Neurological Foundations ofCustomer Orientation: Field and Experimental Evidence.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (5): 639–658. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0271-4.

Blocker, Christopher P., Joseph P. Cannon, Nikolaos G. Pana-gopoulos, and Jeffrey K. Sager. 2012. “The Role of the SalesForce in Value Creation and Appropriation: New Directionsfor Research.” Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement 32 (1): 15–28. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320103.

Bradford, Kevin D., Goutam N. Challagalla, Gary K. Hunter,and William C. Moncrief. 2012. “Strategic Account Man-agement: Conceptualizing, Integrating, and Extending theDomain from Fluid to Dedicated Accounts.” Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 32 (1): 41–56.doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320105.

Brock, Dave. 2013. “Labcast: The Problem with the ChallengerSales Model.” Accessed November 25. http://labs.openview-partners.com/the-problem-with-the-challenger-sales-model/.

Brown, Stephen. 2001. “Torment Your Customers (They’ll LoveIt).” Harvard Business Review 79 (9): 82–88.

Bursk, Edward C. 2006. “Low-pressure Selling.” HarvardBusiness Review 84 (7/8): 150.

Castleberry, Stephen B., and C. David Shepherd. 1993. “Effect-ive Interpersonal Listening and Personal Selling.” TheJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 13 (1):35–49.

Churchill Jr, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, Steven W. Hartley, andOrville C. Walker Jr. 1985. “The Determinants of Salesper-son Performance: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of MarketingResearch 22 (2): 103–118. doi:10.2307/3151357.

CNBC. 2012. “Authors of ‘The Challenger Sale’ Say BuildingRelationships no Longer Works.” Accessed November 24,2013. http://www.cnbc.com/id/46192036.

Cron, William L., Greg W. Marshall, Jagdip Singh, Rosann L.Spiro, and Harish Sujan. 2005. “Salesperson Selection,Training, and Development: Trends, Implications, andResearch Opportunities.” Journal of Personal Selling andSales Management 25 (2): 124–136.

Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles.1990. “Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Inter-personal Influence Perspective.” Journal of Marketing 54(3): 68–81. doi:10.2307/1251817.

Dhar, Ravi, Anil Menon, and Bryan Maach. 2004. “TowardExtending the Compromise Effect to Complex BuyingContexts.” Journal of Marketing Research 41 (3): 258–261.doi:10.1509/jmkr.41.3.258.35996.

Dietvorst, Roeland C., Willem J. M. I. Verbeke, Richard P.Bagozzi, Carolyn Yoon, Marion Smits, and Aad van derLugt. 2009. “A Sales Force–specific Theory-of-mind Scale:

Tests of Its Validity by Classical Methods and FunctionalMagnetic Resonance Imaging.” Journal of MarketingResearch 46 (5): 653–668. doi:10.1509/jmkr.46.5.653.

Dixon, Andrea L., and John F. Tanner. 2012. “TransformingSelling: Why It Is Time to Think Differently about SalesResearch.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Manage-ment 32 (1): 9–14. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320102.

Dixon, Matthew, and Brent Adamson. 2011. The ChallengerSale: Taking Control of the Customer Conversation. NewYork, NY: Penguin.

Doney, Patricia M., and Joseph P. Cannon. 1997. “An Examina-tion of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-seller Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 61 (2): 35–51. doi:10.2307/1251829.

Farrington, Jonathan. 2012. “Selling Is Not About Relationships?- Oh, Really?” Accessed November 25, 2013. http://www.eyesonsales.com/content/article/selling_is_not_about_relationships_-_oh_really/.

Fennis, B. M., E. H. H. J. Das, and A. Pruyn, H. Th. 2004.“If You Can’t Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle themwith Nonsense”: Extending the Impact of the Disrupt-then-reframe Technique of Social Influence.” Journal ofConsumer Psychology 14: 280–290. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_9.

Forbes. 2012. “The One Kind of Sales Rep Who Does Best atB2B.” Accessed November 24, 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/03/the-one-kind-of-sales-rep-who-does-best-at-b2b/.

Franke, George R., and Jeong-Eun Park. 2006. “SalespersonAdaptive Selling Behavior and Customer Orientation: AMeta-analysis.” Journal of Marketing Research 43 (4): 693–702. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.4.693.

Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E.Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hambrick, Donald C. 1984. “Taxonomic Approaches to Study-ing Strategy: Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues.”Journal of Management 10 (1): 27–41. doi:10.1177/014920638401000104.

Hoffmann, K. D., and T. N. Ingram. 1992. “Service Provider JobSatisfaction and Customer-oriented Performance.” The Jour-nal of Services Review 6: 68–78.

Homburg, Christian, Jan Wieseke, and Torsten Bornemann.2009. “Implementing the Marketing Concept at theEmployee–customer Interface: The Role of Customer NeedKnowledge.” Journal of Marketing 73 (4): 64–81.doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.4.64.

Homburg, Christian, Michael Müller, and Martin Klarmann.2011. “When Does Salespeople’s Customer Orientation Leadto Customer Loyalty? The Differential Effects of Relationaland Functional Customer Orientation.” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 39 (6): 795–812.doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0220-7.

Homburg, Christian, Ove Jensen, and Harley Krohmer. 2008.“Configurations of Marketing and Sales: A Taxonomy.”Journal of Marketing 72 (2): 133–154. doi:10.1509/jmkg.72.2.133.

Homburg, Christian, Torsten Bornemann, and Max Kretzer. 2014.“Delusive Perception – Antecedents and Consequences ofSalespeople’s Misperception of Customer Commitment.”Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science 42 (2): 137–153.

Homburg, Christian, John P. Workman Jr, and Ove Jensen. 2002.“A Configurational Perspective on Key Account Manage-ment.” Journal of Marketing 66 (2): 38–60. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.2.38.18471.

Hughes, Douglas E. 2013. “This Ad’s for You: The IndirectEffect of Advertising Perceptions on Salesperson Effort and

256 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Performance.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science41 (1): 1–18. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0293-y.

Hughes, Douglas E., Joël Le Bon, and Adam Rapp. 2013.“Gaining and Leveraging Customer-based Competitive Intel-ligence: The Pivotal Role of Social Capital and SalespersonAdaptive Selling Skills.” Journal of the Academy of Mar-keting Science 41 (1): 91–110. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0311-8.

Jain, Dipak, and Siddhartha S. Singh. 2002. “Customer LifetimeValue Research in Marketing: A Review and Future Direc-tions.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 16 (2): 34–46.doi:10.1002/dir.10032.

James, Geoffrey. 2013. “The Challenger Sale: Not Very Chal-lenging.” Accessed December 8. http://www.inc.com/geoffrey-james/the-challenger-sale-not-very-challenging.html.

Jap, Sandy D. 2001. “The Strategic Role of the Salesforce inDeveloping Customer Satisfaction across the RelationshipLifecycle.” The Journal of Personal Selling and SaleManagement 21 (2): 95–108.

Jap, Sandy D., and Erin Anderson. 2007. “Testing a Life-cycleTheory of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships:Movement across Stages and Performance.” ManagementScience 53 (2): 260–275. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1060.0610.

Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A.Weitz. 2005. “The Changing Environment of Selling andSales Management.” Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement 25 (2): 105–111.

Kennedy, Mary Susan, Linda K. Ferrell, and Debbie ThorneLeClair. 2001. “Consumers’ Trust of Salesperson and Man-ufacturer: An Empirical Study.” Journal of BusinessResearch 51 (1): 73–86. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00039-9.

Lagace, Rosemary R., Robert Dahlstrom, and Jule B. Gassen-heimer. 1991. “The Relevance of Ethical SalespersonBehavior on Relationship Quality: The PharmaceuticalIndustry.” The Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement 11 (4): 39–47.

Lassk, Felicia G., Thomas N. Ingram, Florian Kraus, and Rita DiMascio. 2012. “The Future of Sales Training: Challenges andRelated Research Questions.” Journal of Personal Sellingand Sales Management 32 (1): 141–154. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320112.

Lay, Philip, Todd Hewlin, and Geoffrey Moore. 2009. “In aDownturn, Provoke Your Customers.” Harvard BusinessReview 87 (3): 48–56.

Liska, Allen E. 1984. “A Critical Examination of the CausalStructure of the Fishbein/Ajzen Attitude-behavior Model.”Social Psychology Quarterly 47 (1): 61–74. doi:10.2307/3033889.

Liu, Annie H., and Mark P. Leach. 2001. “Developing LoyalCustomers with a Value-adding Sales Force: ExaminingCustomer Satisfaction and the Perceived Credibility ofConsultative Salespeople.” The Journal of Personal Sellingand Sales Management 21 (2): 147–156.

McDonald, Malcolm, Beth Rogers, and Diana Woodburn. 2000.Key Customers: How to Manage Them Profitably. Woburn,MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Meyer, Alan D., Anne S. Tsui, and C. Robert Hinings. 1993.“Configurational Approaches to Organizational Analysis.”Academy of Management Journal 36 (6): 1175–1195.doi:10.2307/256809.

Millar, M. G., and K. U. Millar. 1990. “Attitude Change as aFunction of Attitude Type and Argument Type.” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 59: 217–218.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.217.

Moncrief, William C., Greg W. Marshall, and Felicia G. Lassk.2006. “A Contemporary Taxonomy of Sales Positions.”Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 26 (1):56–65. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134260105.

Moon, Mark A., and Gary M. Armstrong. 1994. “Selling Teams:A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda.” TheJournal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 14 (1):17–30.

Narasimhan, Ram, Morgan Swink, and Soo Wook Kim. 2006.“Disentangling Leanness and Agility: An Empirical Invest-igation.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (5): 440–457. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2005.11.011.

Narayandas, Das, and V. Kasturi Rangan. 2004. “Building andSustaining Buyer–seller Relationships in Mature IndustrialMarkets.” Journal of Marketing 68 (3): 63–77. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.3.63.34772.

Newell, Stephen J., Joseph J. Belonax, Michael W. McCardle,and Richard E. Plank. 2011. “The Effect of PersonalRelationship and Consultative Task Behaviors on BuyerPerceptions of Salesperson Trust, Expertise, and Loyalty.”The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (3): 307–316. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679190304.

Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and KennethR. Evans. 2006. “Factors Influencing the Effectiveness ofRelationship Marketing: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Mar-keting 70 (4): 136–153. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136.

Palmatier, Robert W., Lisa K. Scheer, Kenneth R. Evans, andTodd J. Arnold. 2008. “Achieving Relationship MarketingEffectiveness in Business-to-business Exchanges.” Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (2): 174–190.doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0078-5.

Palmatier, Robert W., Lisa K. Scheer, and Jan-Benedict E. M.Steenkamp. 2007. “Customer Loyalty to Whom? Managingthe Benefits and Risks of Salesperson-owned Loyalty.”Journal of Marketing Research 44 (2): 185–199.doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.185.

Payne, Adrian F., Kaj Storbacka, and Pennie Frow. 2008.“Managing the Co-creation of Value.” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0.

Periatt, Jeffery A., Stephen A. LeMay, and Subhra Chakrabarty.2004. “The Selling Orientation- Customer Orientation(SOCO) Scale: Cross-validation of the Revised Version.”Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 24 (1):49–54.

Piercy, Nigel F., David W. Cravens, and Nikala Lane. 2010.“Marketing Out of the Recession: Recovery is Coming, butThings will Never be the Same Again.” The MarketingReview 10 (1): 3–23. doi:10.1362/146934710X488915.

Piercy, Nigel F., and Nikala Lane. 2006. “The UnderlyingVulnerabilities in Key Account Management Strategies.”European Management Journal 24 (2): 151–162. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.005.

Plank, Richard E., and David Reid. 2012. “Challenger Selling:The Good; The Bad; The Ugly?” Proceedings of the AtlanticMarketing Association, Williamsburg, Virginia, September,323–329.

Plouffe, Christopher R., and Donald W. Barclay. 2007. “Sales-person Navigation: The Intraorganizational Dimension of theSales Role.” Industrial Marketing Management 36 (4): 528–539. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.02.002.

Plouffe, Christopher R., Yvette Holmes Nelson, and FrederikBeuk. 2013. “Testing an Enhanced, Process-based View ofthe Sales Process.” Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement 33 (2): 141–164. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134330201.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 257

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Rackham, Neil, and J. DeVincentis. 1998. Rethinking the SalesForce: Refining Selling to Create and Capture CustomerValue. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rapp, Adam, Michael Ahearne, John Mathieu, and TammyRapp. 2010. “Managing Sales Teams in a Virtual Environ-ment.” International Journal of Research in Marketing27 (3): 213–224. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.003.

Reichheld, Frederick F., and W. Earl Sasser. 1990. “ZeroDefections: Quality Comes to Services.” Harvard BusinessReview 68 (5): 105–111.

Reinartz, Werner J., and Vijay Kumar. 2000. “On the Profitab-ility of Long-life Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: AnEmpirical Investigation and Implications for Marketing.” TheJournal of Marketing 64 (4): 17–35. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.4.17.18077.

Richardson, Linda. 2012. “Challenger’s Missing Link.”Accessed November 25, 2013. http://blogs.richardson.com/2012/09/05/challenger_sale_missing_link/?vid=null.

Rindfleisch, Aric, Alan J. Malter, Shankar Ganesan, and Chris-tine Moorman. 2008. “Cross- Sectional versus LongitudinalSurvey Research: Concepts, Findings, and Guidelines.”Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3): 261–279. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261.

Román, Sergio, and Salvador Ruiz. 2005. “Relationship Out-comes of Perceived Ethical Sales Behavior: The Customer’sPerspective.” Journal of Business Research 58 (4): 439–445.doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.07.002.

Rust, Roland T., Katherine N. Lemon, and Valarie A. Zeithaml.2004. “Return on Marketing: Using Customer Equity toFocus Marketing Strategy.” Journal of Marketing 68 (1):109–127. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.109.24030.

Salopek, Jennifer J. 2009. “The Power of the Pyramid.” Training& Development 63 (May): 70–75.

Saxe, Robert, and Barton A. Weitz. 1982. “The SOCO Scale: AMeasure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (3): 343–351.doi:10.2307/3151568.

Schultz, Mike. 2013. “Thoughts on the Five Seller Profiles in theChallenger Sale.” Accessed November 25. http://www.rain-salestraining.com/blog/thoughts-on-the-five-seller-profiles-in-the-challenger-sale/.

Shannahan, Kirby L. J., Alan J. Bush, and Rachelle J.Shannahan. 2013. “Are Your Salespeople Coachable? HowSalesperson Coachability, Trait Competitiveness, and Trans-formational Leadership Enhance Sales Performance.” Jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41 (1): 40–54.doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0302-9.

Sharma, Arun, Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer, and Heiner Evanschitzky.2008. “Personal Selling of High-technology Products: TheSolution-selling Imperative.” Journal of Relationship Mar-keting 7 (3): 287–308. doi:10.1080/15332660802409639.

Sheth, Jagdish N., and Arun Sharma. 2008. “The Impact of theProduct to Service Shift in Industrial Markets and theEvolution of the Sales Organization.” Industrial MarketingManagement 37 (3): 260–269. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.07.010.

Spiro, Rosann L., and Barton A. Weitz. 1990. “Adaptive Selling:Conceptualization, Measurement, and Nomological Valid-ity.” Journal of Marketing Research 27 (1): 61–69.doi:10.2307/3172551.

Steenburgh, Thomas, Michael Ahearne, and Elena Corsi. 2012.“Siemens AG: Key Account Management.” Harvard Busi-ness School Case, Boston, MA 512–110.

Stevens, M. J., and M. A. Campion. 1994. “The Knowledge,Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications

for Human Resource Management.” Journal of management20 (2): 503–530. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(94)90025-6.

Steward, Michelle D., Beth A. Walker, Michael D. Hutt, andAjith Kumar. 2010. “The Coordination Strategies of High-performing Salespeople: Internal Working Relationships thatDrive Success.” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience 38 (5): 550–566. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0170-0.

Sujan, Harish, Mita Sujan, and James R. Bettman. 1988.“Knowledge Structure Differences between More Effectiveand Less Effective Salespeople.” Journal of MarketingResearch 25 (1): 81–86. doi:10.2307/3172927.

Szymanski, David M. 1988. “Determinants of Selling Effective-ness: The Importance of Declarative Knowledge to thePersonal Selling Concept.” The Journal of Marketing52 (1): 64–77. doi:10.2307/1251686.

Thomas, Raymond W., Geoffrey N. Soutar, and Maria M. Ryan.2001. “The Selling Orientation Customer Orientation(SOCO) Scale: A Proposed Short Form.” The Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management 21 (1): 63–69.

Thull, Jeff. 2010. Mastering the Complex Sale. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.

Töllner, Alke, Markus Blut, and Hartmut H. Holzmüller. 2011.“Customer Solutions in the Capital Goods Industry: Exam-ining the Impact of the Buying Center.” Industrial MarketingManagement 40 (5): 712–722. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.001.

Tuli, Kapil R., Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Ajay K. Kohli. 2010.“Ties that Bind: The Impact of Multiple Types of Ties with aCustomer on Sales Growth and Sales Volatility.” Journal ofMarketing Research 47 (1): 36–50. doi:10.1509/jmkr.47.1.36.

Tuli, Kapil R., Ajay K. Kohli, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj. 2007.“Rethinking Customer Solutions: From Product Bundles toRelational Processes.” Journal of Marketing 71 (3): 1–17.doi:10.1509/jmkg.71.3.1.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. “Evolving to aNew Dominant Logic for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing68 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036.

Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2008. “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution.” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6.

Venkatesan, Rajkumar, and Vita Kumar. 2004. “A CustomerLifetime Value Framework for Customer Selection andResource Allocation Strategy.” Journal of Marketing68 (4): 106–125. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.4.106.42728.

Verbeke, Willem, Bart Dietz, and Ernst Verwaal. 2011. “Driversof Sales Performance: A Contemporary Meta-analysis. HaveSalespeople Become Knowledge Brokers?” Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 39 (3): 407–428.doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0211-8.

Weitz, Barton A. 1981. “Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: AContingency Framework.” Journal of Marketing 45 (1): 85–103. doi:10.2307/1251723.

Weitz, Barton A., and Kevin D. Bradford. 1999. “PersonalSelling and Sales Management: A Relationship MarketingPerspective.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science27 (2): 241–254. doi:10.1177/0092070399272008.

Weitz, Barton A., Harish Sujan, and Mita Sujan. 1986 “Know-ledge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework forImproving Selling Effectiveness.” The Journal of Marketing50 (4): 174–191. doi:10.2307/1251294.

Williams, Kaylene C., and Rosann L. Spiro. 1985. “Commun-ication Style in the Salesperson- Customer Dyad.” Journal ofMarketing Research 22 (4): 434–442. doi:10.2307/3151588.

258 A. Rapp et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Wood, John Andy, James S. Boles, and Barry J. Babin. 2008a.“The Formation of Buyer’s Trust of the Seller in anInitial Sales Encounter.” The Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice 16 (1): 27–39. doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679160102.

Wood, John Andy, James S. Boles, Wesley Johnston, and DannyBellenger. 2008b. “Buyers’ Trust of the Salesperson: AnItem-level Meta-analysis.” Journal of Personal Selling andSales Management 28 (3): 263–284. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134280304.

Zablah, Alex R., George R. Franke, Tom J. Brown, and DarrellE. Bartholomew. 2012. “How and When Does CustomerOrientation Influence Frontline Employee Job Outcomes? AMeta-analytic Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing 76 (3): 21–40. doi:10.1509/jm.10.0231.

Zahra, Shaker A., Harry J. Sapienza, and Per Davidsson. 2006.“Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capabilities: A Review,Model and Research Agenda.” Journal of ManagementStudies 43 (4): 917–955. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 259

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

34 2

6 Se

ptem

ber

2014