the effects of empathy on salesperson effectiveness

The Effects of Empathy on Salesperson Effectiveness Lyndon E. Dawson, Jr. Barlow Soper Louisiana Tech University

Charles E. Pettijohn Southwest Missouri State University

ABSTRACT

Empathy is often described as a trait possessed by successful salespeople. Empirical studies that have uncovered a positive relationship between empathy and sales have failed, however, to use empathy measurement techniques deemed appropriate in counseling- psychotherapy, the field where most research pertaining to the empathic construct has been conducted. The research reported in this article examines the relationship between a salesperson’s empathy and sales performance by using one of the most clinically acceptable empathy measurement instruments: The Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory. The empa thy levels of salespersons were determined by new-car customers. Sales representatives’ empathy ratings were then compared with their sales performance. The results of the research contradict the a priori assumption that empathy is positively related to sales performance.

Many sales managers state that their methods of selecting and training salespeople are not satisfactory. The accuracy of this perspective is supported by relatively high sales personnel turnover and by poor performance exhibited by some sales representatives (Greenberg & Green- berg, 1976). The difficulties encountered in the selection and training process may be reduced if a list of criteria and training topics is developed to augment these processes. Lists of selection criteria that may

Psychology & Marketing 0 1992 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vol. 9(4): 297-310 (July/August 1992) CCC 0742-6046/92/040297-14$04.00

297

be used in hiring of sales applicants are readily available (Anderson, 1981; Stanton & Buskirk, 1988), as are topics covered in typical sales training programs (Anderson, Hair, & Bush, 1988; Dalrymple, 1988). One topic seems to be excluded from these lists of training subjects and sales personnel selection criteria; this topic is concerned with the salesperson’s interrelationships with clients or customers. One portion of this interrelationship with customers includes the sales representative’s empathy level.

Although interrelationship skills are often omitted from salesperson training and selection lists, sales literature frequently addresses these traits or skills. Greenberg and Greenberg (1983) suggest that one important sales trait is the ability to promote positive interrelationships with clients and customers.

According to Truax and Carkhuff (19671, empathy, as used in the literature of psychology, is defined as “one’s sensitivity to another’s current feelings and his verbal capacity to communicate this understanding in a language attuned to the other’s current feelings.” A quite similar construct definition may be observed in marketing and sales literature. For example, Futrell (1988) defines empathy as “the ability to identify and understand the other person’s feelings, ideas, and situation,” and Marks (1988) defines it as “the ability to feel as another individual does and put oneself in the other’s position to appreciate his or her situation fully.”

Empathy is often identified by sales theorists (Greenberg & Green- berg, 1983; Sager & Ferris, 1986; Scheibelhut & Albaum, 1973) as a prerequisite to successful selling. From a commonly accepted psychology of personality standpoint (i.e., phenomenology, e.g., Rychlak, 19731, it makes sense that higher levels of empathy would be expected to correspond to better sales performance, because more empathetic salespersons would better understand each customer’s unique view- point, situation, and needs. With such “empathetic understanding” (Rogers, 1957) sales personnel would be in a better position to meet those needs through performing the most appropriate sales techniques. However, empathy is often excluded from formal discussions of salesperson selection criteria and training topics. The absence of empathy as a selection and training topic leads to the question of whether empathy is really a determinant of sales performance.

Research has attempted to discover a relationship between empathy and sales effectiveness. Tobolski and Kerr (1952) performed one of the earliest studies of the relationship between salesperson success and empathy. In their study, 32 car salesman completed an empathy instrument developed by Kerr and Speroff. The results revealed that salesperson success was positively related to the car salesperson’s results on the empathy test. Spiro and Weitz (1990) discovered that, for persons with sales experience, empathy, androgyny, locus of control, intrinsic motivation, and self-monitoring are related to adaptive selling.

298 DAWSON ET AL.

They were optimistic that the same personality measures can be used to determine the adapative selling potential of inexperienced applicants.

Another early study by Greenberg and Mayer (1964) revealed a positive relationship between empathy and sales performance. Twenty-five years after its initial appearance, it still is regarded as a classic on the subject of empathy and sales performance (Stevens, 1989). The first purpose of their study was to develop an instrument to measure empathy and ego. The second was to discover whether the presence of empathy and ego were related to sales success. Each of the 300 sales representatives who participated in the study was administered an assessment battery. The results suggested that only the measures which were related to empathy and ego were related to sales success. Based on these results, the authors developed the Multiple Personality In- ventory which was administered to 237 automobile salesmen, 127 insurance agents, and 68 mutual funds sales representatives. A corre- lational analysis of scores on the inventory indicated significant positive relationships among ego, empathy, and sales success.

Based on many years of evaluating applicants for sale positions, Greenberg and Greenberg (1976,1983) assert that success in sales turns critically on three personality dynamics: empathy, ego drive, and ego strength. They define ego drive as “the inner need to persuade another idividual as a means of gaining personal gratification” and ego strength as “self-acceptance.”

Other discussions of empathy and sales performance (Kirkpatrick & Russ, 1976; Olshavsky, 1975; Saxe & Weitz, 1982) parallel the Sager and Ferris (1986) discussion of the need for sales personnel to develop sound relationships with their customers. Although not all of the methods of building sound customer reltionships represent salesperson empathy toward customers, many may be viewed as being similar to the concept of empathy. For example, it may be perceived that the process of understanding the client’s needs is analogous to the concept of ac- curate empathic understanding. By building sound relationships with customers, the salesperson may ensure repeat sales, customer referrals, testimonials, and positive word-of-mouth communication about both the salesperson and the product. Sound customer relations are created, according to Kirkpatrick and Russ (1976), by the salesperson being in- terested in the customer’s needs, by learning about the customer’s business, by being sympathetic to the customer’s problems, by making certain the prospect purchases products most likely to satisfy his needs, and by being sure the customer knows all the implications of the pur- chasing decision.

From studies undertaken to relate empathy and sales performance two facts emerge. First, of the studies reviewed none have had as their sole purpose the asssessment of the relationship of empathy to sales performance. Second, none of the studies reviewed have measured the

~~ ~

EMPATHY AND SALESPERSON EFFECTIVENESS 299

sales representative’s empathy with assessment devices commonly used in the field of psychology (the field were most breakthrough research in empathy studies has occurred). In fact, the empathy evaluation techniques used in prior studies are not even considered in reviews of the psychology literature that pertain to the validity and reliability of various empathy measuring devices (Gurman, 1977). Thus, conclusions reached in some sales-oriented studies may not be using the best instruments for measuring the construct of empathy.

PURPOSE

The present research empirically tests the commonly held assumption concerning empathy’s relationship to sales effectiveness and is based on the vast amount of prior empathy assessment work in psychology. First, the study is intended to remedy the fact that empathy’s influence on sales effectiveness has not been examined in isolation. Second, the research is designed to reduce the problem that may exist when one measures the empathic construct by using less than appropriate measuring instruments, by measuring the sales representative’s empathy with one of the most used, validated, and reliable scales in psychology (Gurman, 1977).

HYPOTHESES

Based on the literature it could be hypothesized that

1. There will be no significant difference in the mean number of automobile units sold among the highest, the average, and the lowest levels of empathizers.

2. There will be no significant difference in the mean sales commission incomes among the highest, the average, and the lowest levels of empathizers.

3. There will be no significant difference in the mean levels of sales closing ratios attained among the highest, the average, and the lowest levels of empathizers.

METHOD

Empathy levels possessed by the sales individuals participating in the study were assessed by the salesperson’s customers using the empathy scale of the Barrett-Lennard (1961; 1978) Relationship Inventory (BLRI). Though developed in a therapeutic context, the BLRI is in-

300 DAWSON ET AL.

tended for use in any interpersonal situation; hence the items are not specific to any particular group or setting. Item examples include: “He wants to understand how I see things” and “He realizes what I mean even when I have difficulty in saying it.” Each item is scored via a 6- point Likert scale ranging from -3, “No, I strongly feel that it is not true” through 3, “Yes, I strongly feel that it is true.” A scale comprised of these items seems appropriate for assessing empathy of salesperson in the context of the present study.

The empathy section of the BLRI is one of the most widely used, reliable, and valid methods available for measuring empathy (Barrett- Lennard, 1978,1981; Gurman, 1977). In extensive investigations of the psychometric qualities of several empathy scales Kurtz and Grumman (1972) and Gurman (1977) have determined that the BLRI has adequate construct and criterion validity. Reliability has also been assessed with test-retest and split-half methods, which consistently provided reliability indexes greater than 0.80 (Barrett-Lennard, 1978; Gurman, 1977). These are considered quite adequate in assessing psychological characteristics.

The BLRI is comprised of 16 Likert-scale items scored on a 6-point scale, designed to measure salesperson empathy. Scores on the instrument may range from -48, which denotes the lowest empathy level possible, through 48, which identifies the highest. Being a socially oriented profession we would expect samples of sales personnel to exhibit a somewhat limited, yet relatively high range of empathy scores (Man- ning & Reece, 1990, p. 17; Scheibelhut & Albaum, 1973). One unique factor of the version of the BLRI used is that it assesses the salesperson’s empathy as it is perceived by the customer. Although other studies (Greenberg & Mayer, 1964; Lamont & Lundstrum, 1977; Tobolski & Kerr, 1952; Scheibelhut & Albaum, 19731, have measured the salesperson’s perception of how their clientele view empathy (an important source of error), the present study focuses directly upon customers’ view of empathy.

A six-step process was used to accomplish the study’s objectives. These steps entailed the following:

1. Sales managers of five automobile dealerships were asked to provide three indicators of sales performance. The three performance measures provided by the mangers included the individual’s mean monthly unit sales, commission income, and closing ratio for the six-month period prior to the study. These performance measures are frequently used by managers of retail autombile dealerships.

2. The sales managers were asked to supply the names of all new- car sales personnel employed by their companies. A total of 30 names (28 male and 2 female subjects) were provided.

3. Each of the 30 identified subjects was contacted. After agreeing to participate, each subject was asked to provide the names and


addresses of their 10 most recent new-car purchasers. From each of these lists, five consumers were interviewed for each salesperson. From the total of 300 purchasers’ names (observations), 150 customers (evaluator-subjects) were personally interviewed and administered the empathy portion of the Barrett-Lennard Rela- tionship Inventory.

4. The empathy ratings obtained for individual sales representatives allowed each salesperson to be classified into one of three empathy categories: high-, medium-, and low-level empathizers. This rep- resents a commonly used analysis grouping for the study of empathy.

5 . Mean performance scores were calculated for each category of empathizer.

6. As suggested by Glass and Stanley (19701, an analysis of variance was used to determine whether differences existing between the performance means for the empathy categories were statistically significant.

The Nature of the Samples

Motor vehicle dealerships participating in the study included five do- mestically franchised firms associated with the so-called “big three” domestic automobile producers. Companies were located in cities with populations ranging between 20,000 and 70,000 people. Characteristics of the sales representatives participating in the study may be observed in Table 1.

Empathy ratings for each sales representative were provided by 150 evaluator-subjects (recnet purchasers). Characteristics of customer raters participating in the study may be observed in Table 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of Sales Representatives.

Number Percent

Sex Male Female

Education Completed high school Completed college Completed advanced degree

Black White

Race

28 2

30 10

1

9 141

94 6

100 33

3

6 94

Note. Mean age tSDi: 37.03 (10.23). Mean total sales experience ( S D ) : 127 months (134). Mean company sales experience (SDi: 27.8 months (34.8). Source: Field Survey Data.

302 DAWSON ET AL.

Table 2. Characteristics of Customer Raters.

Number Percent

Sex Male Female

16-25 26-35 36-45

54-61 62 and over

Education Less than high school Completed high school Completed college

Black White

Less than $15,000 $15,000-$19,000 $19,001-$23,000 $23,001-$27,000 $27,001-$31,000 $3 1,001-$35,000 Over $35,001 Refused to answer

Age

46-53

Race

Annual income

61 89

28 41 33 17 12 19

14 91 45

14 136

17 15 12 14 10 14 39 29

40.6 59.4

18.7 27.3 22.0 11.3 8.0

12.7

9.33 60.67 30.00

9.33 91.66

11.38 10.00 8.00 9.33 6.67 9.33

26.00 19.33

Source: Field Survey Data.

Group Development

Each sales representative’s five empathy scores were totaled and the scores organized into a descending array. A mean empathy rating was computed and subjects were divided into three equal groups based upon their relative positions in the array. Three categories of empathizers were identified in the array. Category one, high-level empathizers, includes those 10 individuals whose mean empathy ratings were the 10 highest of the 30 subjects. A second category, medium-level empathizers, was composed of those sales representatives scoring in the middle third on their composite empathy scores. Group three consisted of the 10 sales individuals whose mean empathy scores ranked the lowest relative to the other two categories. Category three was therefore defined as being composed of low-level empathizers. High-level empathizers possessed composite empathy scores ranging from a high of 38.4 to a low of 23.2, with a mean empathy score of 29.14. Medium-level empathizers obtained a mean empathy score of 18.97; their scores ranged from 22.4 to 15.2. The final group, low empathizers, obtained a mean empathy score of 10.01 and their scores ranged from a high of 14


to a low of 1. The total range of scores entailed nearly 40% of the possible range for the BLRI.

RESULTS

Performance Scores for each Sales Representative Performance scores, with regard to automobile unit sales, commission income (computed as a percentage of gross profits), and sales closing ratios, for each salesperson subject were obtained from the participating dealers’ sales managers. One sales effectiveness indicator was the mean number of automobiles sold by each salesperson participating in the analysis. The mean number of monthly units sold by the sample was 8.2 with a standard deviation of 3.7. The mean number of units sold per month ranged from a high of 17.7 to a low of 3.

Data pertaining to the salesperson’s mean monthly commission income (for the relevant six-month period) were aiso collected. The mean monthly commission income attained by the sample was $1,809 and the standard deviation was $995. Commission income levels ranged from a high of $4,900 to a low of $663.

A third performance measure, mean monthly sales closing ratios for the pertinent six-month period, was calculated by dividing the sales- peron’s number of sgles by hidher number of attempted sales for each month. Mean closing ratios ranged from a high of 58.3 to a low of 14.5. The sales representatives’ mean closing ratio was 31.4 was a standard deviation of 11.

Mean Performance Scores by Empathizer Category

Using the three empathizer categories as a basis of comparison, mean performance scores were calculated for each category. Mean performance scores for each empathizer category are shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the mean commission income for sales personnel defined as high-level empathizers was $1,739.70. Mean commission income levels for medium- and low-level empathizers were $1,998.10 and $1,682.20 respectively.

Table 3. Mean Monthly Performance Results by Empathizer Category.

Empathizer Commission Unit Closing Category Income (sd) Sales (sd) Ratio (sd)

High $1,739( 649) 8.7(2.7) 30.6( 6.6) Medium $1,998(1,521) 8.9(4.6) 32.0(11.5) Low $1,682( 629) 7.1(3.7) 31.5(14.8)

~~~ ~

Source: Participating company records and field survey data.

304 DAWSON ET AL.

Also given in Table 3 is the mean number of units sold by each empathizer group. The mean number of units sold was 8.7,8.9, and 7.1 for high-, medium-, and low-level empathizers, sequentially.

Table 3 identifies the closing ratios attained by each level of empathizer. As shown, a mean closing ratio of 30.6 was obtained by salespeople in the high-level empathizer group, 32.0 by those in the medium-level empathizer category, and 3 1.5 by individuals occupy- ing the low-level empathizer category.

Test of Hypothesis 1

The first hypothesis examined the influence of a sales representative’s empathy category on that individual’s performance effectiveness as indicated by hidher mean number of units sold. To facilitate a statistical evaluation of the influence of one’s empathy category on that individual’s selling performance, an analysis of variance was performed. Re- sults of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.

Analysis of the data revealed that the mean number of units sold for the high-level empathizers was 8.71, for the medium-level 8.85, and for the low-level 7.07. When an analysis of variance procedure is performed, an F value of 0.697 is obtained. This value is significant at the probability of obtaining a greater F value is 0.507. Thus, the results do not contradict the null hypothesis and the null cannot be rejected. Failure to reject the null hypothesis indicates that no statistically significant differences exist between the high-, medium, and low-level empathizers in the mean number of units sold by each empathizer category.


A second research hypothesis examined the influence of one’s empathy level on the mean level of commission income attained. The analysis was designed to evaluate whether a salesperson’s empathy level had a significant impact upon hidher mean level of commission income, the second of the three performance indicators.

The mean commission income for the high-level empathizers was $1,739.70, the commission income for the medium-level was $1,988.10,

Table 4. Differences in the Performance Results Obtained by each Empathizer Category.

Performance Measure Empathizers Empathizers Empathizers Probability

Unit sales 8.7 8.9 7.1 0.507” Commission income 1,739 1,998 1,682 0.771‘ Closing ratio 30.6 32.0 31.5 0.964”

High-Level Medium-Level Low-Level ANOVA

Source: Participating company records and field survey data. aNot significant a t 0.05 level.


and $1,682.20 for the low-level empathizers. As a result of the statistical analysis, an F value of 0.263 was obtained. The probability of obtaining a greater F value is 0.771. The results do not contradict the null hypothesis and the null hypothesis is not rejected. Such a decision indicates that any differences existing between the groups of empathizers in their sales effectiveness, as measured by their mean commission income levels, is not statistically significant.


The third hypothesis was concerned with the influence of the sales representative’s empathy category on that salesperson’s level of selling success as indicated by hisl’her mean closing ratio.

The high-level empathizers achieved mean closing ratios of 30.58, as compared with the medium-level’s closing ratio of 31.95, and the low- level’s closing ratio of 31.51. An F value of 0.037 was obtained from the data analysis. The probability of obtaining a greater F value is 0.964.

Due to this finding, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The inability to reject the null hypothesis indicates that there are no statistically significant differences existing between the empathizer categories and the results obtained by those categories as measured by their closing ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

The major conclusion that may be derived from the research is that empathy is not related, in a simple linear manner, to sales performance. Such a conclusion contradicts the well-established position held by both academicians and practitioners, which states that a high level of empathy is a necessary requisite to effective sales performance.

Not only were the differences in performance levels based on differences in empathy scores insignificant, but the direction of the empathy- performance relationship also contradicted a priori beliefs. As empathy reached its highest levels, performance declined; yet, when empathy scores declined to more moderate levels, performance levels often reached their apex. Although it is recognized that the study is explor- atory in nature, such a contradiction of established logic may indicate a need to empirically evaluate more of the tenets advanced as necessary for effective personal selling. Further, it may be indicative of the fact that some of the assumptions made in the area of sales have a need to be empirically tested, to authenticate their validity;, and may also indicate a need to move from an intuitively based approach to sales management to a more scientific approach to examining factors that influence sales success.

306 DAWSON ET AL.

However, if the findings derived from this research are valid, this means that empathy is not a critical trait of successful sales representatives. Such a conclusion would imply that sales mangers should select sales personnel based upon factors other than empathy. Such selection criteria could include aggressiveness, product knowledge, ability to ap- ply sales techniques, or some personality factor other than empathy. Further, if empathy is not related to sales productivity, sales trainers may wish to emphasize behaviors other than listening, understanding the customer, and other empathic acitivites in their training programs. Training topics that exclude empathy, may include such factors as product knowledge, negotiation skills, or sales techniques.

In interpreting the results, certain limitations (many of them com- mon to survey research) should be recognized. On limitation may be that new car sales personnel may occupy sales roles that do not require the salesperson exhibit high levels of empathy to hidher customers beyond some minimum threshold level. Second, a sample size of 150 evaluation subjects may not be large enough to allow the researchers to identify significant differences in performance. Also, although the scale used to assess empathy has been validated in the field of psychology, such validation has not been performed in the field of selling. Finally, respondent bias may have influenced the results. Such bias may occur as a result of the respondent’s postpurchase satisfaction or dissonance.

Future research may be developed to address some of the study’s limitations. Research using the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inven- tory to evaluate empathy levels of individuals engaged in the sale of products/ services requiring greater levels of buyer / seller interaction may produce different results. It may be useful to determine if the various concepts of empathy are as similar in practice as sales and psychology texts suggests. The sale of products and services such as insurance, investment services, or homes, which require a greater degree of mutual trust and salesperson counseling, may provide more information on the empathy effectiveness relationship. Correspond- ingly, future research may be developed to assess the effect of the du- ration of the buyer-seller dyad and specific on sellers’ empathy ratings customer variables. Further research projects might include the empathy ratings provided by nonpurchasers as well as purchasers. If such empathy ratings are different, one may attempt to determine whether the differences relate to higher levels of empathy. Finally, a future research endeavor might use different criteria measures of salesperson performance. Such measures could include managerial ratings of performance or ratings of customer satisfaction.


QUESTIONNAIRE

BARRETT-LENNARD RELATIONSHIP INVENTORY EMPATHY SCALE

Included in the following questions are a variety of ways that one person may feel or behave in relation to another person.

Please consider each statement with reference to your recent interactions with your new- car salesperson.

Make your response according to how strongly you feel that it is true, or not true, in this relationship.

+3: Yes, I strongly feel that it is true. -1: No, I feel that it is probably untrue, or more untrue than true.

+ 2 : Yes, I feel it is true. -2: No, I feel it is not true.

+1: Yes, I feel that it is probably true, or -3: No, I strongly feel that it is not true. more true than untrue.

__ 2.

___ 3.

4.

5 .

6 .

7.

8.

9.

___ 10.

__ 11.

___ 12.

13.

14.

-

__ 15.

16.

He wants to understand how I see things.

He may understand my words but, he does not see the way I feel.

He nearly always knows exactly what I mean.

He looks at what I do from his own point of view.

He usually senses or realizes what I am feeling.

His own attitudes toward some of the things I do or say prevent him from understanding me.

Sometimes he thinks I feel a certain way, because that’s the way he feels.

He realizes what I mean even when I have difficulty in saying it.

He usually understands the whole of what I mean.

He just takes no notice of some things that I think or feel.

He appreciates exactly how the things I experience feel to me.

At times he thinks that I feel a lot more strongly about a particular thing than I really do.

He does not realize how sensitive I am about some of the things we discuss.

He understands me.

His response to me is usually so fixed and automatic that I don’t really get through to him.

When I am hurt or upset he can recognize my feelings exactly, without becoming upset himself.

308 DAWSON ET AL.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. E., Hair J. F., & Bush, A. J. (1988). Professional sales managment. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Anderson, B. R. (1981). Professional sales management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1961). Dimensions of therapist response as causal factors in therapeutic change. Psychological Monographs. 76 (43, Whole No. 562).

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1978). The relationship inventory: Later development and adapatations (pp. 1-53) University of Waterloo.

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1981). The empathy cycle: refinement of a nuclear concept. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 28, 91-100.

Dalrymple, D. J. (1988). Sales managment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Futrell, C. (1988). Fundamentals of selling. (2nd ed.) Homewood, IL: Richard

D. Irwin. Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J. C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and

psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, H. (1976, December). “Predicting sales success-

Myths and reality. Personnel Journal, 621-627. Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, H. (1983, December). The personality of a top

salesperson. Nation’s Business, 30-32. Greenberg, H., & Mayer, D. (1964). A new approach to the scientific selection

of successful salesmen. The Journal of Psychology, 57, 113-123. Gurman, A. S. (1977). The patient’s perception of the therapeutic relationship.

In A. S. Gurman & A. M. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherpay: A handbook of research. New York: Pergamon.

Kirkpatrick, C. A., & Russ, F. A. (1976). Salesmanship. Cincinnati: South- Western Publishing Co.

Kurtz, R. R. & Grummon, D. L. (1972). Different approaches to the measurement of therapist empathy and their relationship to therapy outcomes, Jour- nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 106-115.

Lamont, L. M., & Lundstrom, W. J . (1977). Identifying successful salesmen by personality and personal characteristics. Journal o f Marketing Research, 14,

Manning, G., & Reece, B. L. (1990). Selling today (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Marks, R. B. (1988). Personal selling: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1975). Customer-salesman interaction in appliance retailing. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 208-212.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.

Rychlak, J. F. (1973). Introduction to personality and psychotherapy: A theory construction approach. Boston: Houghton MiMin.

Sager, J. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1986). Personality and salesforce selection in the pharmaceutical industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 15, 319-324.

Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. (1982). The Soco scale: A measure of the customer ori- entation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 343-351.

517-529.


Scheibelhut, J., & Albaum, G. (1973). Self-other orientations among salesmen and nonsalesmen. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 97-99.

Stanton, W. J., & Buskirk, R. H. (1988). Management o f t h e sales force (7th ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Spiro, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement, and monological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27,61- 69.

Stevens, C. G. (1989). Is your empathy showing?. Dotted Lines, 30, 1. Tobolski, F. P., & Kerr, W. A. (1952). Predictive value of the empathy test in

Traux, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. (1967). Toward effective counseling and psy- automobile salesmanship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 310-311.

chotherapy. Chicago: Aldine.

Lyndon E. Dawson, Jr., the corresponding author, is with the Department of Management and Marketing, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71270.

310 DAWSON ET AL.

the effects of empathy on salesperson effectiveness

Documents