Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2015

Vol. 35, No. 1, 3350, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.988716

The influence of organizational and functional support on the development of salesperson

job satisfaction
Nadia Pomirleanua* and Babu John Mariadossb
a

Department of Marketing and International Business, Lee Business School, University of Nevada, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las
Vegas, NV 89154, USA; bDepartment of Marketing, College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4750, USA
(Received 16 November 2013; accepted 13 November 2014)
This article investigates whether organizational and functional support (OS and FS) provided to the sales force are distinct
determinants of salesperson job satisfaction. We examine whether salesperson trust in their supervisor and in the
organization serve as mediating mechanisms through which OS is translated to salesperson job satisfaction. Using data from
157 salespeople in a health care field setting, we explore the relationship between OS and job satisfaction as mediated by
trust and moderated by the extent of FS provided to salespeople. Study results were consistent with the hypothesized
conceptual scheme of moderated mediation, in that FS moderated the indirect effect of OS on job satisfaction through trust
in organization but not through trust in supervisor. These findings broaden current understanding of relationships among
trust, OS and job satisfaction and illustrate that the OSsalesperson job satisfaction linkage is more nuanced than previously
depicted. This study has important implications for the practice, as it reinforces the notion that trust is essential in a social
based employment relationship, yet challenging to manage. Organizations should avoid overinvesting in specific support
offered to the sales force and train their supervisors to enact the most effective support practices.
Keywords: salesperson job satisfaction; organizational support; functional support; trust

Salesperson job satisfaction plays a central role in ensuring

sales force productivity, salesperson performance (e.g.,
Babakus et al. 1996; Brown and Peterson 1993, 1994;
Iaffaldano and Muchinsky 1985) and enhancing customer
satisfaction (Homburg and Stock 2004, 2005). Therefore, a
rich stream of research in management, applied psychology
and organizational science has focused on identifying the
antecedents of job satisfaction (Brown and Peterson 1993;
Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Judge, Heller, and Mount 2002;
Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Ward 1997). The findings
have informed both academicians and sales practitioners on
the importance of critical variables that can help improve
salesperson job satisfaction. Past research has highlighted
the role of organizational variables in understanding
salesperson job satisfaction and suggests that perceived
organizational support (POS) could be a key antecedent to
salesperson job satisfaction (Brown and Peterson 1993).
However, the specific mechanisms through which organizational support (OS) affects job satisfaction have not been
investigated.
Blaus (1964) social exchange theory suggests that
perceptions of employees about the extent to which they
are valued and cared for by the organization may relate
to job outcomes. Past research has also shown that POS
may affect job satisfaction by meeting socio-emotional
needs, increasing performance-reward expectancies, and

signaling the availability of aid when needed (Rhoades

and Eisenberger 2002, 699). Additionally, recent work on
occupational stress posits coping strategies as an additional
mechanism through which POS may affect employee wellbeing outcomes and job affect (Armstrong-Stassen 2004;
Baran, Rhoades Shanock, and Miller 2012). These coping
strategies manifest through actions and cognitive reappraisals that are proactive and take charge in nature (controloriented) or that involve escapist and avoidance behaviour
(Armstrong-Stassen 2004). Therefore, based on social
exchange theory, trust should play a central role in the
relationship between POS and salesperson job satisfaction.
Similar to perceptions of OS, trust also develops through a
social exchange process, in which salespeople personify the
organization, evaluate their actions and respond in kind to
their perceptions. Hence, this research focuses on trust as a
possible mediating variable in the POSsalesperson job
satisfaction link.
Although past research has established the empirical
link between employees trust and job satisfaction (e.g.,
Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen 2002), it will be interesting to
know both from an academic and a practical perspective,
if POS influences job satisfaction through trust. Literature
review suggests that POS is an important antecedent of
trust (e.g., DeConinck 2010; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Dulac
et al. 2008; Eisenberger et al. 2004), hence the existence

The authors thank Raj Echambadi and the three anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.
*Corresponding author. Email: nadia.pomirleanu@unlv.edu
2014 Pi Sigma Epsilon National Educational Foundation

34

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

of an indirect link between OS and job satisfaction

through trust would indicate that trust is critical in
enhancing job satisfaction. Further, it is also possible
that POS interacts with other variables to create trust. If
moderating influences on the POS-trust link are established, it would help us understand how and when support
can enhance job satisfaction. Though extant research (e.g.,
Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005; DeConinck 2010; Gilstrap
and Collins 2012; Stinglhamber et al. 2006) has consistently argued for more research into this area, this gap in
the literature is yet to be addressed.
The purpose of this research is to investigate the
mediational processes and moderational influences that
are involved in the OSjob satisfaction relationship.
Specifically, we present a model that posits trust as a
mediator in the relationship. In this process, we also seek
to expand our current understanding of the OS and trust
constructs, by forwarding two forms of perceived OS and
also distinguishing between two referents of trust. While
past research has used a tripartite view of POS, i.e.,
fairness, supervisor support and job conditions (Rhoades
and Eisenberger 2002), we investigate the theoretical
possibility that POS could be either instrumental and/or
informational support (Cohen and Wills 1985). We
contend that the instrumental/informational support perceived by the salesperson as support received from the
organization and/or functional unit (marketing) respectively could have unique consequences on job satisfaction.
Similarly, we go beyond the custom view of trust by
employing a two-referent approach of trust (Aryee,
Budhwar, and Chen 2002; Tan and Tan 2000), suggesting
that trust can develop between employees and their firm
and/or supervisors, and that it can have different consequences (Wayne et al. 1997).
Our research contributes to the sales management
literature in the following ways: first, our conceptual
model contributes to the literature by differentiating
between the different types of POS, and the multiple
referents of trust, and simultaneously testing their distinct
effects on salesperson job satisfaction. Such differentiation
contributes to and advances the field because lack of
differentiation creates errors in reasoning about entities or
developing findings that pertain to them (MacInnis 2011,
146). Second, we posit and test different theoretical
mechanisms for the mediation of salesperson trust in
organization and supervisor in the OSsatisfaction link,
while also suggesting distinct effects for the moderation of
functional support (FS) on the link between organization
support and trust in organization/supervisor; these distinct
mediational and interactive mechanisms have hitherto not
been presented and tested. Third, although several of these
relationships have been independently tested in prior
studies, we present an integrated model that explains the
effect of POS on salesperson job satisfaction (as presented
in Appendix 1). Our framework presents trust in

organization and supervisor as multiple mediators to the

relationship between POS and salesperson job satisfaction
and also tests whether there are distinct interactive
relationships between OS and FS dimensions of POS as
related to salesperson trust variables. Such integration
contributes to the literature by providing a holistic
perspective on the focal constructs, provides overarching
ideas that can accommodate previous findings and produces novel perspectives (MacInnis 2011). Finally, this
richer framework contributes empirically by helping to
reduce the omitted variable biases introduced when all
variables from the nomological net of a construct are not
included in the model.
In the next section, we provide a brief review of the
literature related to POS, trust and job satisfaction. Then,
we present and discuss our model comprising relationships among the constructs. Following this, we explain
our methodology and present the results of our study of a
remote salesforce operating in the pharmaceutical sector.
Then, we discuss our results and present both theoretical
and managerial implications. Finally, we present the
limitations of our research as well as future research
opportunities.
Literature review
Job satisfaction
Past research defines job satisfaction as a positive emotional state that reflects an affective response to the job
situation (Locke 1976). Other conceptualizations of job
satisfaction emphasize the emotional and affective state
related to job and job environment characteristics. For
instance, job satisfaction has been viewed as an attitudinal
variable assessing how people feel about their job or
aspects of their job (Spector 1997), and also as a positive
feeling about ones job resulting from an evaluation of
these characteristics (Robins and Judge 2009, 65). Job
satisfaction can capture an overall assessment of job and
job characteristics or assess employee satisfaction across
multiple facets of job, e.g., coworkers, pay, supervisors or
customers (Boles, Wood, and Johnson 2003). Furthermore, job satisfaction is distinguished from work satisfaction, i.e., individuals assessments of the work in terms of
personal rewards and value placed by society on that
profession (Perry and Mankin 2007).
In sales research, job satisfaction is of particular
interest to organizations because it has been linked to
organizational commitment, turnover intentions, propensity to leave, performance, role conflict and ambiguity
(Brown and Peterson 1993). At the same time, the
responsibility of ensuring salespersons job satisfaction is
especially challenging for sales managers (Honeycutt and
Ford 1995) because perceptions of inappropriate managerial behaviours may undermine salespersons job satisfaction and firm performance (Podsakoff and Mackenzie

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

1994). Churchill, Ford, and Walker (1976) found that a
high percent of the variation in job satisfaction among
salespeople was explained by company policies and
practices as well as supervisory behaviours. A better
understanding of the salesperson job satisfaction drivers
is important for managers to aid in resource allocation:
directly investing in organizational or supervisor drivers of
job satisfaction. In this study, we define salesperson job
satisfaction as a global attitude expressing how salespeople feel about their job or aspects of their current job.
Perceived organizational support
Past research has established that POS is an important
antecedent of job satisfaction (Brown and Peterson 1993;
Aquino and Griffeth 1999; Eisenberger et al. 1997; Piercy
et al. 2006; Shore and Tetrick 1991). Eisenberger et al.
(1986, 501) define POS to be a global belief encompassing the extent to which employees perceive that their
contributions are valued by their organization and that the
firm cares about their well-being. POS has also been
found to be consistently related to organizational commitment (Eisenberger et al. 1990; Settoon, Bennett, and Liden
1996; Rhoades, Eisenberger, and Armeli 2001; Shore and
Tetrick 1991), effort-reward expectancies (Eisenberger
et al. 1990), leadermember exchange (Settoon et al.
1996; Wayne, Shore, and Liden 1997) and supervisor
support (Kottke and Sharafinski 1988; Shore and Tetrick
1991), among others.
Social exchange theory (SET; Blau 1964) suggests that
POS meets employees socio-emotional needs, increasing
performance-reward expectancies, signaling the availability
of aid when needed (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002, 699),
while also augmenting the coping strategies available to
employees, e.g., control or avoidance strategies (Baran,
Rhoades Shanock, and Miller 2012). SET describes the
variability of employeeorganization relationship in terms
of the amounts of material resources, information and
support exchanged between the two parties (Foa and Foa
2001). Research (e.g., Chan, Taylor, and Markham 2008)
also suggests that perceived support to employees can come
in several unique forms such as social-political support,
resource support and information support. The greater the
perceived value of the different forms of support, the higher
the quality of the interaction that in turn leads to positive
workplace behaviours (Foa and Foa 2001). Thus, there is
merit to considering the different forms of POS provided by
a firm to its salespeople.
Traditionally, OS provided to salespeople can be
categorized in terms of fairness, supervisor support or
job conditions (Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). However,
traditional dimensions of POS may be less distinguishable
in a sales force setting, and a better understanding of its
implications requires differentiation in types of support
perceived by salespeople. Such differentiation is needed

35

due to the following reasons: first, research suggests that

the selling function has evolved (Plouffe and Barclay
2007). Organizations have reorganized as well, to accommodate traditional field-selling sales force with team
selling, electronic selling and various other sale structures
requiring additional or new resources (cf. Bauer et al.
1998). However, the evolution of both selling function
and organization may not be perfectly aligned. For
example, support provided by organizations (i.e., training)
may have been inconsistent with specific needs of the
sales force. For example, Cron et al. (2005) characterizes
training as (1) standardized for all salespeople even
though sales personal may have nonstandard needs,
(2) determined by top management even though salespeople tend to have a better idea of their individual
educational needs, (3) mandated for all salespeople even
though some may be irrelevant, (4) centralized versus
decentralized, as many salespeople are geographically
dispersed, and (5) provided without incorporating idiosyncratic assimilation styles of salespeople (pace, structure, method).
The second reason for why traditional dimensions of
POS may be less distinguishable in a sales force setting
relates to the dual role performed by a salesperson first,
as a regular employee who performs tasks related to his/
her job, and second, a boundary spanner that relies on
internal resources and specific skills. For example, salespeople are often aware of the discrepancies in how they
are treated as boundary spanners, when they may feel they
have the support on a personal level but lack general
guidance, resources or direction regarding the job they are
expected to do as employees (Pazy 2011). Traditional
dimensions of POS prove less informative in this case.
Third, the sales force may find it difficult to evaluate
which form of support is associated with a specific
referent. Because the distance between the organization
and salespeople is greater compared to other employees
(DeCarlo and Agarwal 1999), the potential for misunderstanding is higher, and the same organization action (i.e.,
training) can be interpreted as both organization and
supervisor support.
Moreover, as argued by Stan et al (2012), the fairness
dimension for a remote salesperson is likely to be less
distinguishable from the supervisor dimension because of
the predominance of interactions with sales managers as
opposed to other employees of the organization. Finally,
as organizations are changing with respect to information
access and management (Jones et al. 2005), irrespective of
the importance of individual abilities, the capabilities of
the newly implemented and reorganized support systems
to prevent errors, disseminate and manage information
become critical in the implementation of OS strategies and
value delivery (Alexander et al. 2006; Tanner et al. 2005).
This is consistent with recent research in sales management that supports a new dimensionality of POS (Stan

36

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

et al. 2012), as well as with emerging research that

emphasize the role of knowledge management systems
such as sales force automation in sales settings (i.e.,
Mariadoss et al. 2014).
We decompose POS into support which focuses on the
salesperson support in achieving general job tasks (for
effectiveness) and support which focuses on the salesperson support in developing skills for specific job tasks (for
efficiency). We define OS as the belief of salespersons that
organization values employees and cares about their wellbeing by providing basic infrastructure (e.g., fleet administration, human resource practices and specific general
policies regarding the general administration of the sales
force and the corresponding accounts). This type of POS
is essential to non-selling tasks, create motivation and
reduce administrative stress for employees. It is structural,
concrete, more permanent, tangible and easily observable
in terms of value by the sales force. This form of support
is also more uniform across the sales force, as it is easy to
observe if other salespeople have or do not have
transportation and in what conditions, what type of
compensation is applied, what kind of structure governs
their activity and the types of human resource programmes
that they can access.
On the other hand, the FS component is a type of POS,
designed to enhance employees skills by providing
information applicable to better serving customers and
increase job efficiency (such as targeting and analysis,
sales automation, communications, liaison with clients,
etc.). FS is more personable, can be altered more easily
and can be more adaptable to day to day activities
associated with the selling task, hence employees will be
able to identify the benefits (or lack of) of this type of
support. The relevance of this support type is directly
linked to the employee idiosyncratic ability and willingness to extract and use the intrinsic benefits in order to
perform better. Similar to OS, elements of FS are expected
to contribute positively to creating and reinforcing positive attitudes among employees. Based on this, we forward
FS as an important variable that can act in combination
with the structural OS provided to salespersons.
Trust
Trust has been studied across many disciplines including psychology, sociology, economics, and more
recently, marketing and management as a positive
element in working relationships among coworkers,
between organizations and within organizations and
has been linked to attitudinal outcomes of job satisfaction (Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Deery, Iverson, and Walsh
2006; Perry and Mankin 2007), performance (Colquitt
et al. 2007), organizational commitment (Flaherty and
Pappas 2000), among others. Trust has been viewed as
the willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive

expectations about the intentions or behaviour of others

(Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995) and operates as a
psychological mechanism in realizing organizational
effort effectiveness. Such expectations are based on
perceptions of others trustworthiness (Gabarro 1978;
Mayer et al. 1995) and affective responses to others
(McAllister 1995; Williams 2001).
Trust develops thus as employees learn about the
trustworthiness of the organization over time (Williams
2001) through evidence of trustworthiness in terms of
ability (knowledge and skill needed to do a specific job),
benevolence (the extent to which an organization is
believed to want to do good for their employees) and
integrity (the extent to which an organization is believed
to adhere to sound moral and ethical principles). All three
dimensions of trustworthiness have been shown to have
unique relationships with trust albeit moderate in magnitude for ability and benevolence and weak for integrity
(Colquitt et al. 2007). With respect to job performance,
trust is believed to affect the manner in which organizational resources are allocated (Dirks and Ferrin 2002;
Mayer and Gavin 2005). An employee willing to trust his
organization and supervisors is free to focus full attention
on the job task.
Recently, the concept of trust has undergone refinement and development, with researchers urging to investigate trust associated with different work relationships that
may develop within an organization. Whitener (1997)
proposed that employees develop trust in at least two
different types of referents: specific individuals (i.e.,
supervisor) and generalized representatives (i.e.,
employer). Tan and Tan (2000) define trust in supervisor
as involving the day to day interaction between the
supervisor and employee, while trust in organization
involves relations with a variety of constituent groups
within the organization. Past literature empirically differentiates between different referents of trust and suggests
that their work relationships within an organization are
distinct (Wayne, Shore, and Liden 1997).The value of
distinguishing among multiple referents of trust lies in the
fact that each constituent within an organization may have
distinct goals and values, which may not necessarily be
compatible. In general, the higher the status the trust
referent has within the organization, the more the
employee should attribute the actions of that referent to
the intent of the organization (Eisenberger et al. 2004).
However, research in this direction is still emerging and
studies directly investigating different aspects of trust in
organizational contexts such as sales raise several questions in terms of replicability and applicability of the
above findings in the sales context.
Based on past research, we differentiate between two
different referents of trust within the organization, trust in
the supervisor (sales manager) and trust in the organization. The relationship marketing literature likens the trust

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

relationship between salespersons and their managers to
that between a selling and buying firm (e.g., Moorman,
Deshpande, and Zaltman 1992; Morgan and Hunt 1994).
Further, Rich (1997) characterizes the trust relationship as
an exchange process, where sales managers provide
direction, advice and praise to the salespersons in
exchange for the salespersons effort and performance;
while to the salesperson, the sales manager is an exchange
partner, who may or may not be trusted. While integrative
trust models conceptualize bases of trust in terms of
integrity (honesty), ability and benevolence (e.g., Mayer,
Davis and Schoorman 1995), other research suggests that
both belief and behavioural intention are important for the
trust to exist (Moorman, Deshpande, and Zaltman 1992).
Rich (1997) further explicates the behavioural intention to
rely on a manager to suggest that salespersons trusting
their manager as necessarily being very loyal to the
manager. Thus, when salespersons trust their exchange
partner, they will strongly intend to rely on the partner,
and the salespersons are loyal towards that partner, be it
their immediate supervisor or senior management.
Based on Podsakoff et al.s (1990) conceptualization
of trust towards manager as faith in and loyalty toward
the manager (115) and on Richs (1997) suggestion that
trust and loyalty directed at the same object go hand-inhand, we formally define trust towards supervisor as faith
in, and loyalty towards their supervisor, and trust in the
organization as faith in, and loyalty towards their organization. Research in management suggests that organizational outcomes (strategies and effectiveness) are viewed
as reflections of the values and cognitive bases of top
managers (Hambrick and Mason 1984). Hence, we believe

37

that in the eyes of the employee, senior management is the

personification of the organization and is the actual
referent for trust in the organization.
Past research (i.e., Chen, Aryee, and Lee 2005;
DeConinck 2010; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Dulac et al.
2008; Tan and Tan 2000; Whitener 2001) has shown a
positive relationship between POS and trust in either
supervisor or management. The relationship between POS
and job satisfaction (Babakus et al. 1996; Piercy et al.
2006; Poon, Salleh, and Senik 2007; Rhoades and
Eisenberger 2002; Rutherford, Park, and Han 2011) has
also been shown extensively. Similarly, the relationship
between trust and job satisfaction has extensively been
studied from the disjointed perspective of either trust in
supervisor or trust in organization (e.g., Aryee, Budhwar,
and Chen 2002; Brashear et al. 2003; Dirks and Ferrin
2002; Flaherty and Pappas 2000).
As shown in Appendix 1, our review of the literature
uncovered multiple contexts in which job satisfaction is
separately related to POS and trust, e.g., nursing, B2B,
tourism, banking, sales, academia; however, there is a lack
of research integrating POS, trust in supervisor and
organization and job satisfaction, especially in a sales
context, where studies investigating the relationship
between trust in organization and job satisfaction are
lacking. Past evidence for the relationship between trust
and job satisfaction and that between POS and trust
suggests that firms could use OS initiatives to drive job
satisfaction through enhancing trust. In the next section,
we discuss our conceptual model (as shown in Figure 1)
that posits the mediation of trust in the relationship

Functional support
(FS)
Salesperson
trust in
organization

H2()

H1b
(+)

Organizational
support
(OS)

Salesperson

job satisfaction

H3(+)
H1a
(+)

H1a
(+)

Salesperson
trust in
supervisor

Figure 1.

H1b
(+)

Path diagram of hypothesized model.

Control variables

Performance
Experience
Effort

38

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Hypotheses development
In this research, we rely on social exchange theory (Blau
1964; Thibault and Kelley 1959), one of the most
influential conceptual paradigms for understanding workplace behaviour and attitudes to explain how OS influences job satisfaction through trust. Research has found
that more than 40% of the variation in job satisfaction
among salespeople can be explained by company policies
and practices as well as supervisory behaviour (Churchill,
Ford, and Walker 1976). More specifically, POS and trust
have been found to be important antecedents to job
satisfaction (Aryee, Budhwar, and Chen 2002; Brown
and Peterson 1993; Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1976;
Mulki, Jaramillo, and Locander 2006; Rich 1997;
Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002; Piercy et al. 2006).
Therefore, we will consider OS and aspects of salespersonsupervisor relationships as antecedents of salesperson
job satisfaction.
We argue that the employment relationship is a form
of social exchange, which involves a series of interactions
between parties in an organization that generate unspecified obligations (Colquitt 2001; Dirks and Ferrin 2002;
Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). In a salesperson context,
the fair treatment of its salespersons by an organization
will initiate a social exchange with the salesperson.
Consistent actions over time reinforce the trustworthiness
of the organization and will lead to development of trust
towards different referents in the organization. Favourable
OS initiatives will be interpreted by salespeople as
evidence of organizational care and interest in their wellbeing. As a result of continuous interaction, trust grows
and the salespeople need to balance out the exchange by
discharging their obligations from the treatment received
(Blau 1964, 94). Social exchanges thus entail high levels
of trust and go beyond the employment contract; when a
party performs a favour or service for another party, there
is some expectation of future reciprocity, thought exactly
what type of return or the rules guiding the exchange are
still unclear (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).

leader as well as with trust in the organization (Dirks and

Ferrin 2002; Dulac et al. 2008); therefore, we expect that an
increase in the levels of OS will have a favourable effect on
both referents of trust.
According to Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995),
any party in an exchange will be evaluated in terms of
trustworthiness evidenced through integrity, ability and
benevolence. In practice, an organizations trustworthiness
as perceived by its employees is assessed as a function of
how tasks are accomplished, how policies are enacted and
applied, how processes are designed, how processes
reflect or provide fair circumstances for related parties
and how decisions are made in the organization (Galford
and Drapeau 2002). OS activities provide a signal to the
salesperson with respect to the viability, reliability, trustworthiness of the organization. When salespeople perceive
lower levels of OS, then they will evaluate the organization as being less benevolent, able or honest and find few
reasons to trust the organization. However, when they
perceive higher levels of OS, then they will evaluate the
organization as being benevolent, honest and, thus,
trustworthy, which in turn will foster trust.
As regards to trust in supervisors, salespeople interact
with their supervisors more frequently than with their
organization through senior management. Employees base
their decision to trust their direct supervisor on the
procedures that are under their supervisors direct control
rather than distal action that are primarily controlled by
upper management (Flaherty and Pappas 2000). Salespeople infer from the existing OS, the support offered to
their supervisors. An organization involved in strong OS
activities, e.g., implementation of specific human research
practices such as employee and supervisor guidelines, is
most likely doing a better job at recruiting and motivating
its employees, including supervisors. Zhang et al. (2008)
have shown that organizations that adopt certain forms of
human resource practice (such as employeeorganization
relationship) gain a higher level of trust from middle
managers compared to other approaches. Therefore,
higher levels of OS signal recruitment of better supervisors. This, in turn, will directly influence the salespeoples perceptions of their supervisors and the amount
of trust placed in them.

Organizational support and trust

Trust and job satisfaction

All forms of perceived support increase trust in the referents

of trust (Whitener 2001; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Connell,
Ferres, and Travaglione 2003; Stinglhamber et al. 2006;
DeConinck 2010) directly or indirectly. For example, while
DeConinck (2010) demonstrated that direct supervisors
support acts as a mediator between interactional justice and
trust in supervisors, Stinglhamber et al. (2006) showed that
this relationship is only partially mediated by support. Past
research has shown that POS is correlated with trust in the

Sales supervisors and organizations are seen as exchange

partners to the salesperson and the trust that is established
between the exchange partners is indicative of the
treatment that salespeople receive within the organization.
Salespeople reciprocate in terms of positive work attitudes
(i.e., job satisfaction) and contributions that exceed role
requirements. Even when sales supervisors/managers and
organizations do not closely supervise their salespeople,
they are still a big part of the salesperson job experience

between OS and job satisfaction and state hypotheses that

derive from our arguments.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

and are a major influence of a salespersons job perceptions (Kohli 1989). Past research supports the contention
that both trust in organization and in supervisor are related
to increased job satisfaction (Rich 1997; Aryee, Budhwar,
and Chen 2002; Brashear et al. 2003; Frenkel, Sanders,
and Bednall 2013; Lagace 1991; Stringer 2006; Tallman
2007). Therefore, we expect that trust in organization and
in supervisor will have an effect on salesperson job
satisfaction.
Based on theory and past evidence (i.e., Chen, Aryee,
and Lee 2005; Eisenberger et al. 2004, Stinglhamber, De
Cremer, and Mercken 2006), we anticipate that OS
provided to a salesperson will positively affect the levels
of trust developed within an organization which, in turn,
will influence salesperson job satisfaction. We thus
propose that trust in supervisor and in organization will
act as mediators in the OSsalesperson job satisfaction
relationship, and state as follows:
Hypothesis 1a: Salesperson trust in supervisor will mediate the positive relationship between OS and salesperson
job satisfaction, such that the indirect relationship between
OS and salesperson job satisfaction through salesperson
trust in supervisor is positive.
Hypothesis 1b: Salesperson trust in organization will
mediate the positive relationship between OS and salesperson job satisfaction, such that the indirect relationship
between OSand salesperson job satisfaction through
salesperson trust in organization is positive.

Both types of support, viz. OS and FS, may exist in

various degrees in any organization and build organization
trustworthiness. At average levels of FS, OS activities of a
firm provide a signal to the salesperson with respect to the
viability, reliability, openness of the organization, creating
salesperson trust in the organization. Since exchange
partners will be evaluated in terms of honesty, ability
and benevolence (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995),
salespersons will perceive OS actions to be favourable
signals about the benevolence of the organization, thus
affecting their trust in the organization.
Similar to OS, FS also provides signals to about the
organizations willingness to support the salesperson, thus
playing a role in creating trust. However, under lower than
average levels of FS, due to the lack of another form of
support, the signals provided by a firms OS actions will
be evaluated more positively by the salesperson. Under
such circumstances, any incremental level of OS will
overwhelm the salespeople and cause trust in the organization to increase. Salespersons would also perceive OS
actions as the firms commitment to invest in them as
much as it can afford, in an environment where other
forms of support are unavailable or low. This eventually
results in a strong impact of OS activities on job
satisfaction. Conversely, at higher levels of FS, the effect
of OS on trust towards the organization may not be keenly
perceived by the salesperson, because an alternative type

39

of support is available, at high levels. Therefore, it is

increasingly harder to build trust in the organization
through incremental OS activities, because the impact
OS activities is not salient when FS levels are also very
high. Past research in marketing supports our contention
by positing a negative interaction effect between two
similar signals due to a substitution effect, suggesting a
reduction in the effectiveness of a signal because of the
existence of another signal of similar type (Basuroy et al.
2006). This phenomenon is also consistent with predictions of cue consistency theory (Maheswaran and Chaiken
1991), which states that a signals own credibility is
weakened when accompanied by another similar signal
because of a redundancy discounting. Based on the above,
we expect a decrease in the effect of OS on job
satisfaction, at higher levels of FS. Therefore, we state
as follows:
Hypothesis 2: Functional support (FS) will moderate the
indirect effect of OS on salesperson job satisfaction
through salesperson trust in organization such that at (a)
higher levels of FS, the effect of OS on salesperson job
satisfaction through salesperson trust in organization
becomes weaker and (b) at lower levels of FS, the effect
of OS on salesperson job satisfaction through trust in
organization becomes stronger.

In addition to its moderating influence on the relationship

between OS and trust in the organization, we also expect
FS to moderate the relationship between OS and trust in
supervisor. However, we expect the nature of the moderating effect to be different, as the target of trust becomes
the supervisor, not the organization. Salespeople perceive
a firms OS actions as a signal to its commitment to recruit
superior sales managers; therefore, increased OS is
expected to lead to more salesperson trust in their supervisors. On the other hand, FS offered to a salesperson
represents the level of resources over which the direct
supervisor has discretion in distribution, hence high levels
of FS may be perceived as a positive signal of managers
wanting to support salespersons activities by releasing
resources to their sales force. Since OS signals a firms
commitment to recruit superior sales managers who will
look out for the interests of the salespeople, an increase in
FS will lead to better perceptions of supervisors as both
able (well trained, recruited and motivated) and benevolent. This will lead to an overall trusting environment,
where salespersons place greater trust in their supervisors
as a result of every additional OS activity provided to
them. Therefore, we expect that FS adds incremental value
to the impact of OS on trust towards the supervisor. As
this effect gets translated to job satisfaction, the net effect
of OS on job satisfaction tends to be stronger at high
levels of FS. However, when FS is low, there is reduced
opportunity for an enhancement of OSs effect on supervisor trust. Therefore, we expect that the complementary
effect of both types of support in creating an overall

40

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

trusting environment will be much reduced at lower levels

of FS. Formally, we state:
Hypothesis 3: Functional support will moderate the
indirect effect of organizational support on job satisfaction
through salesperson trust in supervisor, such the effect of
organizational support on salesperson job satisfaction
through trust in supervisor is stronger when functional
support is high than when it is low.

Method
Research design and data collection
We collected data from a large US-based medical devices
company to test our hypotheses. We drew the sample for
this study from field sales representatives in charge of
selling medical equipment in the biotechnology industry.
The biotechnology industry is suited to test our research
hypotheses because it provides extensive OS and marketing support to field salespeople (Mousalli 2006).
We collected data through an online survey. First, a
companys senior executive sent an introductory email to
the salespeople about the study, which was followed by
another email by one of the researchers, with a request to
complete the online survey. This was followed by personal
phone calls to salespeople who had not completed the
survey. We received complete responses from 292 salespeople, resulting in a response rate of 93%, however, after
removing cases that had incomplete data, we had a total of
157 usable cases. Incomplete data were mainly attributable to focal variables missing data.

Construct measures
Scale development for our focal variables entailed several
stages. We first conducted a preliminary investigation to
specify our construct domain, to generate sample items for
new constructs and to check the face validity of existing
scales and adapted measures to our specific sales context.
Then we developed a draft questionnaire and pre-tested it
with three academic colleagues and two industry experts.
Appendix 2 shows the scales and items used in our
measurement instrument and the reliability coefficients.
OS was operationalized using a three-item reflective
scale that was developed specifically for this study, based
on the type of OS provided to salespersons in the
company. The items measured the extent to which salespersons perceived the firm to provide them support in
terms of fleet, human resources and sample accountability.
FS was operationalized using a seven-item reflective
scale that was developed specifically for this study, based
on the type of marketing and sales support provided to
salespersons in the company. The items measured the
extent to which salespersons perceived the marketing
department to provide them support in terms of sales
training, sales automation, etc.

Trust. Both our trust variables, viz. salesperson trust in

supervisor, and salesperson trust in organization were
operationalized as faith in and loyalty toward the
manager Podsakoff et al. (1990, 115). Accordingly,
salesperson trust in supervisor (SUP) was measured
through a four-item scale adapted from Podsakoff et al.
(1990) and previously used by Rich (1997) and Gilstrap
and Collins (2012). Salesperson trust in organization
(ORG) was measured through a four-item scale. This
construct tapped the sales representatives perceptions of
trust in senior management. The use of this measure of
trust is a deliberate departure from the measure commonly
used in tests of Mayer et al.s (1995) model. Previous
applications of the commonly used measure resulted in
reliability problems (Davis et al. 2000; Mayer and Davis
1999). Therefore, we chose to use a scale, consistent with
our conceptualization and other research (Hambrick and
Mason 1984) that identifies the top management as an
important constituent to personify the organization.
Job satisfaction was measured through a five-item 7point scale based on Brown and Peterson (1994) and
Churchill, Ford, and Walker (1976) that include items
such as Overall, I am satisfied with my job, My job is
worthwhile and My job is exciting.
Control variables of role performance, experience and
effort were included in our analysis based on the previous
literature (Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Ahearne 1998).
Construct validity of all multi-item constructs was
assessed by computing their composite reliabilities and
comparing the average variance extracted (AVE) to the
squared correlations between the latent variables. Our
analyses show that all multi-item constructs exhibit
composite reliabilities of .7 and more, indicating that their
reliabilities are adequate (Hulland 1999). As shown in
Table 1, the AVE in three of the multi-item constructs is .5
or greater, indicative of acceptable convergent validity.
For two constructs, the AVE is .45 and .42, which is
marginal, whereas the composite reliabilities are high, .7
and .83, respectively. In these cases, the construct convergent validity should be assessed in conjunction with
content validity and reliability. While actions taken to
improve reliability (removing items) can influence AVE
positively or negatively and at the same time compromise
the content validity of the construct, we decided to
maintain the current items of the measure as a tradeoff
among consistency, reliability, AVE and face validity
(Ping 2004). We then assessed discriminant validity by
verifying that the squared correlation between any two
latent variables is less than either of their individual AVEs,
suggesting that each construct has more internal variance
than variance shared between them.
Common method variance. As the data have been
obtained from the same source, and thus susceptible to
Common method variance (CMV), we took measures to
ensure this is not an issue by applying Harmans one

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

41

Table 1. Descriptive statistics: correlations, mean and standard deviation

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Organizational support
Functional support
Trust in supervisor
Trust in organization
Job satisfaction
Experience
Performance
Effort

Mean

SD

5.52
5.04
6.14
5.67
5.86
21.56
4.91
47.43

.90
.96
1.43
1.50
1.25
14.2
1.29
7.65

.45
.558**
.299**
.461**
.393**
.911
.019
.021

.42
.270**
.594**
.453**
.257**
.014
.096

.83
.50**
.539**
.047
.167*
.082

.69
.771**
.181*
.035
.049

.83
.056
.018
.032

.027
.111

.027

Note: Given in bold are the AVE for independent variables on the diagonal; N = 157.
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

factor test on items. The results of this the exploratory

factor analysis of the unrotated matrix test show that four
factors were clearly produced, explaining in total 71% of
the variance, with the largest factor not accounting for the
majority of the variance (45%). This suggests that the
majority of the variance is not accounted for by one
general method factor, also eliminating concerns of social
desirability of being a potential reason for method bias.
Social desirability reflects the tendency on behalf of the
subjects to deny socially undesirable traits and to claim
socially desirable ones and the tendency to say things
which favours the respondent. Although the measurement
of trust and satisfaction may be susceptible to social
desirability reporting by salespersons, we expect that by
avoiding face to face interviews and ensuring respondent
anonymity, we have reduced salespeoples evaluation
apprehension and made them less likely to edit their
responses to be more socially desirable (Nederhof 1985;
Podsakoff et al. 2003).
We further assessed CMV through the Marker Variable technique (Lindell and Whitney 2001), which takes
advantage of a special marker variable that is incorporated
into the survey questionnaire along with variables of
interest. Theoretically, this variable should be unrelated to
at least one of the research variables. This allows
assessment of CMV, by testing whether the significant
correlations among variables are still significant after their
disattenuation by the lowest correlation between the
marker and one of the variables. We added a marker
variable by including a question that asks employees their
level of satisfaction with patient education materials. The
results of this test show that all the previously significant
correlations remained significant, indicating thus that
CMV was not a problem in this data.
Results
As a preliminary analysis, we went over the descriptive
statistics to examine the distribution and normality of the
data (Table 1). The descriptives show that there is a large

enough variation in our constructs for our analysis to be

meaningful. The relatively large correlations between job
satisfaction measure and both trust constructs are in line
with the theory. Nonetheless, to alleviate any concerns
regarding multicollinearity and to ease the interpretation
of the findings, the independent variables have been
mean-centred for the analyses. Simple linear regressions
were employed to verify the collinearity among the
independent variables. The highest variance inflation
factor (VIF) was 2 and the highest tolerance index was
.97 which indicates that multicolinearity is not a problem.
Collectively, Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b and 3 suggest
a moderated mediation model (Preacher et al. 2007),
whereby the strength of the relationship between levels
of OS on job satisfaction through trust in organization and
supervisor is conditional on the value of the moderator. To
avoid conceptual and mathematical limitations associated
with traditional approaches for assessing moderated
mediation (Preacher et al. 2007), we employ the statistical
methods and SPSS Process syntax (model 8) presented
in Hayes (2013) to estimate two equations:
Mj a0 a1j X a2j W a3j XW r

Y b0 b1j Mj c0 1j X c0 2j c0 3j XW r; j 1; 2:
2
where X is the independent variable, Y is the dependent
variable, Mj is the mediating variable(s), and W is the
moderating variable.
The Process syntax can afford a multi-mediator
concurrent testing. The coefficients a0 and b0 are intercept
terms, a1j represents the strength of the path from OS (X)
to trust in supervisor (M1) and trust in organization (M2),
a2j represents the strength of the path from FS (W) to each
of the mediators, a3j represents the strength of the crossproduct of OS and FS (XW) to each of the mediators, b1
represents the strength of the path from each mediators

.04**
.08

SE

.113
.08**
.007
.014
.09
.211
.012
.017
.16
4.87***
For ease of reading, the significant results are presented in bold.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; p < .10 (two-tailed tests).

.089 .048
.004 .004
.013 .007
.655
40.49***
.088***
.066
.006
.011
.28
.02
.006
.008
.3
10.72***

.21
.08**
.013
.007
.017
.014
.15
5.69***

.445***
.525***

OS
FS
Trust (SUP)
Trust (ORG)
(OS FS)
Performance
Experience
Effort
R2
F

1.66
2.07

.35
.25

.144*
.14

.055
.008
.194
.537

.082
.086
.049**
.055***

.067
.048

.04*
.04

.367
.222

.146**
.144

.035 .08
.071 .08
.216 .05***
.496 .05***
.139 .06**
.09
.04
.004 .004
.012 .007
.66
36.84***

B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B
Dependent variable

Job satisfaction (indirect

effects)
Job satisfaction
TRUST in
supervisor
Job satisfaction (indirect
effects)
Job satisfaction
TRUST in
supervisor
Job satisfaction

Moderated mediation model through trust in supervisor

Mediated model through trust in supervisor
Unmediated direct effect
model

(Mj) to job satisfaction (Y) while controlling for X, c1

represents the strength of the path from X to Y while
controlling for Mj, c2 represents the strength of the path
from W to Y, c3 refers to the path from the cross-product
of X and W to Y and r is the regression residual. The point
estimate of the indirect effect of X on Y through Mj can be
expressed as (a1j + a3jW) b1j, whereas the indirect effect of
XW on Y through Mj equals a3j b1j. This procedure
generates confidence intervals for the population value of
the conditional indirect effects, which makes avoidable
power problems introduced by asymmetric and other nonnormal sampling distributions of an indirect effect.
The results of our analysis largely confirmed our
theoretical predictions that the indirect effects of OS on
job satisfaction through trust vary with the level of FS.
H1a and H1b relate to the mediating role of trust in the
OSjob satisfaction relationship. Both trust in supervisor
and in organization are positively and significantly related
to job satisfaction (s = .194, p < .01; t = .537, p < .001)
when accounting for OS, FS and control variables (see
Tables 2 and 3).
Results show that OS has a positive, significant impact
on both trust in supervisor and organization (a11 =.35,
p < .05 and a12 =.33, p < .01) when accounting for in-role
performance, experience and effort. FS has been found to
also have a positive and significant impact on trust in
organization (a22 = .72, p < .001) and marginally
significant positive impact on trust in supervisor (a21 =
.25, p < .1). Moreover, the results show that both the
significant effect of OS and FS on job satisfaction (POS =
1.66, p < .001 and F = 2.07, p < .001) become
insignificant, suggesting total mediation of trust in the
OSjob satisfaction relationship. Based on Preacher and
Hayes (2004), we found that the indirect effects of OS
through both trust in supervisor (Sup = .067, p < .05) and
organization (O = .179, p < .01) are positive and
significant, with both confidence intervals around the
indirect effect not containing zero (CISup = (.003, .164)
and CIo = (.055, .368)). Thus, our results show that the
indirect effects of OS on job satisfaction thorough both
trust referents are positive and significant, supporting H1a
and H1b.
Hypotheses 2a, 2b and 3 relate to the moderating
effects of FS on the indirect effects of OS on job
satisfaction through trust in supervisor and organization.
Results show that the moderating effect of the FS on the
positive relationship between OS and trust in organization
is negative and significant ( = .327, p < .001). This
suggests that the positive effects of OS on trust in
organization become weaker when FS is high. Results of
the conditional mediation analysis for H2b provided in
Table 4 show that the indirect effect of OS on jobs
satisfaction through trust in organization is positive and
significant when it is at and below its mean [ = .12,
p < .05, CI = (.01, .27)]. However, as seen in Table 4, the

Regression estimates: moderated mediation of the indirect effect of FS and OS on job satisfaction through trust in supervisor and organization.

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Table 2.

42

.06**

indirect positive relationship between OS and job satisfaction becomes insignificant when FS is above its mean
( = .02, ns) and becomes stronger and significant when
FS is low (at 10th percentile below mean, = .33, p <
.001, CI = (.12, .59). Hence, Hypothesis 2 is supported.
The graphical plot depicting the significant interaction is
shown in Figure 2. As seen in Figure 2, the slope of the
line representing the effect of OS on trust in the
organization is steeper at lower levels than at higher
levels of FS.
Results also show that the moderating effect of the FS
on the positive relationship between OS and trust in
supervisor is positive but not significant ( = .09, ns).
Results of the conditional mediation analysis for H3
provided in Table 4 show that the indirect effect of OS
on job satisfaction through trust in supervisor is positive
and significant only when FS is at its mean ( = .08, p <
.05). However, as seen in Table 4, the indirect positive
relationship between OS and job satisfaction becomes
insignificant when FS is either low (at 10th percentile, =
.05, ns) or high (90th percentile, = .1, ns). Therefore, H3
is not supported.

.121

SE
.126*
.124***

.09***
.07
.006
.012

.276
.82

.327
.04
.002
.002
.42
18.43***

.07**
.09***

.035 .08
.071 .08
.216 .05***
.496 .05***
.139 .06**
.09
.04
.004 .004
.012 .007
.66
36.84***

B
SE
B
SE
B
SE

For ease of reading, the significant results are presented in bold.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001; p < .10 (two-tailed tests).

.088***
.066
.006
.011
.28
.02
.006
.008
.3
10.72***

.042
.075
.004
.007
.001
.01
.38
18.61***

.089 .048
.004 .004
.013 .007
.655
40.49***

.179
.39
.082
.086
.049**
.055***
.055
.008
.194
.537
.129**
.125***
.33
.72
.445***
.525***
1.66
2.07

OS
FS
Trust (SUP)
Trust (ORG)
(OS FS)
Performance
Experience
Effort
R2
F

B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
B

Job satisfaction
(indirect effects)
Job satisfaction
TRUST in
organization
Job satisfaction
(indirect effects)
Job satisfaction
TRUST in
organization
Job satisfaction

Moderated mediation model through trust in organization

Mediated model through trust in organization
Unmediated direct effect
model

43

Discussion

Dependent variable

Table 3.

Regression estimates: moderated mediation of the indirect effect of FS and OS on job satisfaction through trust in supervisor and organization.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

This study contributes to our understanding of how

salespeoples trust in their organization as well as their
supervisors is an important variable in ensuring the
translation of the effects of OS efforts on sales force job
satisfaction. Based on the assumption that relationship
exchanges focused at different referents in an organization
foster different levels of trust and reciprocity attitudes and
behaviours in a salesperson, we studied the relationship
between OS and job satisfaction, including investigation
of salesperson trust towards the organization and their
supervisor. We believe that, by forwarding a moderated
mediation model that includes interactions between different forms of OS on desired outcomes such as trust and
job satisfaction of salespeople, our study advances sales
literature in a number of ways.
First, this research constitutes one of the few studies to
have revealed the impact of OS through multiple referents
of salesperson trust. Our results show that increased OS is
indeed positively related to higher levels of salesperson
trust in both supervisor and organization. From a social
exchange point of view, we also believe that by discharging their obligations and exhibiting trust in their supervisor and organization, salespeople also demonstrate their
trustworthiness and reinforce the exchange relationship.
Second, building on social exchange theory, we propose
that trust mediates the relationships between OS and job
satisfaction. As salespeople integrate the support received
into their trust, they feel obligated to reciprocate based on
the resources exchanged within the organization and
develop positive attitudes towards their jobs. Our results

44

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Table 4. Conditional indirect effects of OS at values of FS.

FS (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th
and 90th percentile)
1.1884
0.7598
0.0974
0.6688
1.2402

Trust (ORG)

Trust (SUP)

Indirect effect

SE

Indirect effect

SE

0.3304***
0.2607***
0.1214*
0.0285
0.0644

0.1164
0.0963
0.0663
0.0622
0.0743

0.0538
0.0631
0.0816*
0.0939
0.1062

0.0547
0.0477
0.0474
0.0571
0.0714

Significant values are in bold.

*p < .05; ***p < .001 (one-tailed tests).

Figure 2. Interactive effects of OS and FS on trust in

organization.

suggest that trust may be critical to job satisfaction and

this study is one of the first to empirically test and confirm
the link between OS, multi-referents of trust and job
satisfaction.
As an answer to calls for more research on the
outcomes of adoption and implementation of newer
support systems amidst the ongoing organizational transformations (Tanner et al. 2005), we examined the moderating role of two forms of OS, in the context of and in
conjunction with the mediating role of trust. Findings of
our moderated mediation analysis suggest that lower
levels of FS strengthen the positive relationship between
OS and trust but only for trust in the organization. We
observe the positive influence of OS is strengthened as
levels of FS increase up to the mean levels of FS. After
these levels, the indirect impact of OS on job satisfaction
becomes insignificant.
The conditional indirect effects analysis for supervisor
trust as a mediator showed distinct results. While FS does
not moderate the relationship between OS and trust in
supervisor, the indirect effects of OS on job satisfaction
through trust in supervisor are significant at mean levels
of FS. This is an interesting finding that sheds light onto

other possible mechanisms influencing perceptions of

salespeople at higher levels of FS. Higher FS may be
perceived by salespersons as resource endowments by
supervisors in exchange for more control over them,
undermining an environment conducive to trust, which
may explain the lack of significant positive effects of OS
on satisfaction at high FS levels. Organizational support
has been shown to enhance proactive behaviours of
employees, yet this happens only when the level of
support is moderate (Burnett et al. 2013). High levels of
OS may become a threat to the self-esteem of the
employee, having a deteriorating effect on their proactive
behaviours.
Overall, our findings are consistent with social
exchange theories that rely on reciprocation, describing
the intention of the employees who feel supported by the
organization and their supervisors to respond in a certain
manner. In extension to the common assumption that
employees reciprocate in kind and towards the focal
referent, our results show that the same form of OS can
have simultaneous effects on attitudes directed at different
focal points. Second, it brings the question of whether the
relationships specified under social exchange theory are
linear or can be more accurately captured under different
theoretical specifications. Finally, employing multiple
mediators that act in parallel helped us create a more
complete picture regarding the relative importance of the
trust mechanism that influences job satisfaction. Our
findings attest to the possibility that even positive organizational actions can have limited effects or even thresholds beyond which their effect may become less positive.
Collectively, our findings seem to support the ideas that
too much OS may not be optimal, and that this can be
interpreted as excessive and self-interested. Such information can be especially useful to organizations that struggle
to allocate resources and shape into leaner structures.
In terms of practical implications, our findings suggest
that sales managers have a role in improving salesperson
satisfaction by providing excellent OS to salespeople, in
the absence of significant FS, as there seems to be a
substituting relationship between OS and FS, as related to

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

job satisfaction. Moreover, the direct relationship between
trust and job satisfaction suggests that firms can improve
job satisfaction by any other mechanism that can enhance
the level of trust towards the organizations or supervisors.
Examples of such mechanisms could be programmes that
promote reciprocal relationships between managers and
the salespeople. The lack of a combined positive effect
between FS and OS on trust in supervisor suggests that
firms could save resources by avoiding expenditures on
improving support across the organization, as increased
focus on either one of them could suffice. Being mindful
of these different types of support that the employees
perceive within an organization has practical importance
since they were found to be interactive in this particular
setting.
Limitations and future research
Although this study shed light on the role trust plays in
understanding the effects of OS dimensions on job
satisfaction, our study has its limitations. First, our
conceptualization of support (organizational and functional) invites refinements and replication. Second, we
collected data from salespeople who work in the pharmaceuticals industry where that trust is likely to be more
visible than in other selling organizations. To ensure data
free of same source bias, future studies can collect
independent and dependent variables from different
sources, say salespeople and their managers. Finally, it
would be interesting to study the effect of different levels
of support on trust and job satisfaction using a multi-time
period, with longitudinal data. Future research should also
investigate how trust in organization and supervisor
trickles down to salesperson performance and customer
satisfaction, beyond salesperson satisfaction.
References
Al-Sakarnah, Belal, and Faleh Abdelgader Alhawary. 2009.
Unraveling the Relationship between Employees Perception to Organization and Turnover Intentions: Exploring the
Mediating effects of Trust to Organization.International
Journal of Business and Management 4 (10): 177183.
Alexander, Jeffrey A., Bryan J. Weiner, Stephen M. Shortell,
Laurence C. Baker, and Mark P. Becker. 2006. The Role of
Organizational Infrastructure in Implementation of Hospitals
Quality Improvement. Hospital Topics 84 (1): 1121.
doi:10.3200/HTPS.84.1.11-21.
Aquino, Karl, and Rodger W. Griffeth. 1999. An Exploration of
the Antecedents and Consequences of Perceived Organizational Support: A Longitudinal Study. Unpublished manuscript, University of Delaware.
Armstrong-Stassen, Marjorie. 2004. The Influence of Prior Commitment on the Reactions of Layoff Survivors to Organizational
Downsizing. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
9 (1): 4660. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.1.46.
Aryee, Samuel, Pawan S. Budhwar, and Zhen Xiong Chen.
2002. Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Work Outcome: Test of a Social

45

Exchange Model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23

(May): 267285.
Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Mark Johnston, and William C.
Moncrief. 1996. Examining the Role of Organizational
Variables in the Sales Person Job Satisfaction Model. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 16 (3): 3346.
Baran, Benjamin E., Linda Rhoades Shanock, and Lindsay R.
Miller. 2012. Advancing Organizational Support Theory
into the Twenty-first Century World of Work. Journal of
Business and Psychology 27 (2): 123147. doi:10.1007/
s10869-011-9236-3.
Basuroy, Suman, Kalpesh Kaushik Desai, and Debabrata Talukdar. 2006. An Empirical Investigation of Signaling in the
Motion Picture Industry. Journal of Marketing Research
43 (2): 287295. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.2.287.
Bauer, Gerald J., Mark S. Baunchalk, Thomas N. Ingram, and
Raymond W. LaForge. (1998). Emerging Trends in Sales
Thought and Practice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Blau, Peter Michael. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Boles, James S., John Andy Wood, and Julie Johnson. 2003.
Interrelationships of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, and
Work-family Conflict with Different Facets of Job Satisfaction and the Moderating Effects of Gender. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 23 (2): 99113.
Brashear, Thomas G., James S. Boles, Danny N. Bellenger, and
Charles M. Brooks. 2003. An Empirical Test of Trustbuilding Processes and Outcomes in Sales ManagerSalesperson Relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 31 (2): 189200. doi:10.1177/0092070302250902.
Braun, Susanne, Claudia Peus, Silke Weisweiler, and Dieter
Frey. 2013. Transformational Leadership, Job Satisfaction,
and Team Performance: A Multilevel Mediation Model of
Trust. The Leadership Quarterly 24 (1): 270283.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson. 1993. Antecedents
and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Metaanalysis and Assessment of Causal Effects. Journal of
Marketing Research 30 (1): 6377. doi:10.2307/3172514.
Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson. 1994. The Effect of
Effort on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction. Journal
of Marketing 58 (2): 7080. doi:10.2307/1252270.
Burnett, Meredith F., Dan S. Chiaburu, Debra L. Shapiro, and Ning
Li. 2013. Revisiting How and When Perceived Organizational
Support Enhances Taking Charge: An Inverted U-Shaped
Perspective. Journal of Management 20 (10): 122.
Chan, Yuen H., Robert R. Taylor, and Scott Markham. 2008.
The Role of Subordinates Trust in a Social Exchangedriven Psychological Empowerment Process. Journal of
Managerial Issues 20 (4): 444467.
Chen, Zhen Xiong, Samuel Aryee, and Cynthia Lee. 2005. Test
of a Mediation Model of Perceived Organizational Support.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (3): 457470.
Churchill, Gilbert A. Jr., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker.
1976. Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the
Sales Force. Journal of Marketing Research 13: 323332.
Cohen, Sheldon, and Thomas A. Wills. 1985. Stress, Social
Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis. Psychological
Bulletin 98 (2): 310357. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310.
Colakoglu. Ulker, Osman Culha, and Hakan Atay. 2010. The
Effects of Perceived Organizational Support on Employees
Affective Outcomes: Evidence from the hotel Industry.
Tourism and Hospitality Management 16(2): 125150.
Colquitt, Jason A. 2001. On the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure. Journal
of Applied Psychology 86 (3): 386400. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.3.386.

46

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Colquitt, Jason A., Brent A. Scott, and Jeffery A. LePine. (2007),

Trust, Trustworthiness, and Trust Propensity: A Metaanalytic Test of Their Unique Relationships with Risk Taking
and Job Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology
92 (4): 909927.
Connell, Julia, Natalie Ferres, and Tony Travaglione. 2003.
Engendering Trust in manager-Subordinate Relationships.
Personnel Review 32 (5): 569587.
Cron, William, Greg W. Marshall, Jagdip Singh, Rosann L.
Spiro, and Harish Sujan. 2005. Salesperson Selection,
Training, and Development: Trends, Implications and
Research Opportunities. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 25 (2): 123136.
Cropanzano, Russell, and Marie S. Mitchell. 2005. Social
Exchange Theory: An Interdisciplinary Review. Journal of
Management 31 (6): 874900.
Cunningham, J. Barton, and James MacGregor. 2000. Trust and
the Design of Work Complementary Constructs in Satisfaction and Performance. Human Relations 53 (12):
15751591.
Davis, James H., F. David Schoorman, Roger C. Mayer, and
HweeHoon Tan. 2000. The Trusted General Manager and
Business Unit Performance: Empirical Evidence of a Competitive Advantage. Strategic Management Journal 21 (5):
563575.
DeCarlo, Thomas E., and Sanjeev Agarwal. 1999. Influence of
Managerial Behaviors and Job Autonomy on Job Satisfaction
of Industrial Salespersons. Industrial Marketing Management 28 (1): 5162. doi:10.1016/S0019-8501(98)00022-4.
DeConinck, James B. 2010. The Effect of Organizational
Justice, Perceived Organizational Support, and Perceived
Supervisor Support on Marketing Employees Level of
Trust. Journal of Business Research 63 (12): 13491355.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.01.003.
Deery, Stephen J., Roderick D. Iverson, and Janet T. Walsh. 2006.
Toward a Better Understanding of Psychological Contract
Breach: A Study of Customer Service Employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology 91 (1): 166175. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.
91.1.166.
Dirks, Kurt T., and Donald L. Ferrin. 2002. Trust in Leadership:
A Meta-analytic Findings and Implications for Research and
Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (August):
611628.
Dulac, Tangy, Jacqueline A.-M. Coyle-Shapiro, David J. Henderson, and Sandy J. Wayne. 2008. Not All Responses to
Breach Are the Same: The Interconnection of Social
Exchange and Psychological Contract Processes In Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 51 (6): 1079
1098. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732596.
Eisenberger, Robert, Jim Cummings, Stephen Armeli, and
Patrick Lynch. 1997. Perceived Organizational Support,
Discretionary Treatment, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology 82 (5): 812820.
Eisenberger, Robert, Peter Fasolo, and Valerie Davis-LaMastro.
1990. Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, and Innovation. Journal of Applied
Psychology 71: 500507.
Eisenberger, Robert, Robin Huntington, Steven Hutchison, and
Debora Sowa. 1986. Perceived Organizational Support.
Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3): 500507. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.71.3.500.
Eisenberger, Robert, Jason R. Jones, Justin Aselage, and Ivan
Sucharski. 2004. Perceived Organizational Support. In The
Employment Relationship: Examining Psychological and
Contextual Perspectives, edited by J. Coyle-Shapiro, L.

Shore, S. Taylor, and L. Tetrick, 206225. New York:

Oxford University Press.
Flaherty, Karen E., and James M. Pappas. 2000. The Role of
Trust in Salesperson-sales Manager Relationships. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management 20 (4): 271278.
Foa, Edna, and Uriel Foa. 2001. Resource Theory of Social
Exchange In Handbook of Social Resource Theory: Theoretical
Extensions, Empirical Insights, and Social Applications, Critical Issues in Social Justice, edited by K. Trnblom and A.
Kazemi, 1532. New York.
Frenkel, Stephen, Karin Sanders, and Tim Bednall. 2013.
Employee Perceptions of Management Relations as Influences on Job Satisfaction and Quit Intentions. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 30 (1): 729. doi:10.1007/s10490012-9290-z.
Gabarro, John J. 1978. The Development of Trust, Influence,
and Expectations. In Interpersonal Behaviors: Communication and Understanding in Relationships, edited by A. G.
Athos and J. J. Gabarro, 290303. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Galford, Robert M., and Anne S. Drapeau. 2002. The Trusted
Leader: Bringing Out the Best in Your People and Your
Company. New York: Free Press.
Gilstrap, Bruce J., and Brian J. Collins. 2012. The Importance
of Being Trustworthy: Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between Leader Behaviors and Employee Job Satisfaction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 19
(2): 152163. doi:10.1177/1548051811431827.
Goris, Jos R., Bobby C. Vaught, and John D. Pettit Jr. 2003.
Effects of Trust in Superiors and Influence of Superiors on
the Association Between Individual-job Congruence and Job
Performance/Satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology 17 (3): 327343.
Hambrick, Donald C., and Phyllis A. Mason. 1984. Upper
Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top
Managers. Academy of Management Review 9 (2): 193206.
Hayes, Andrew. 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation
and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Based
Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Honeycutt, Earl D., and John B. Ford. 1995. Guidelines for
Managing an International Sales Force. Industrial Marketing Management 24 (2): 135144. doi:10.1016/0019-8501
(94)00040-4.
Hulland, John. 1999. Use of Partial Least Squares in Strategic
Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies.
Strategic Management Journal 20 (2): 195204. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2<195::AID-SMJ13>3.0.CO;2-7.
Homburg, Christian, and Ruth M. Stock. 2004. The Link
between Salespeoples Job Satisfaction and Customer Satisfaction in a Business-to-business Context: A Dyadic Analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (2):
144158. doi:10.1177/0092070303261415.
Homburg, Christian, and Ruth M. Stock. 2005. Exploring the
Conditions Under Which Salesperson Work Satisfaction Can
Lead to Customer Satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing
22 (5): 393420. doi:10.1002/mar.20065.
Iaffaldano, Michelle T., and Paul M. Muchinsky. 1985. Job
Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 97 (2): 251273.
Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A.
Weitz. 2005. The Changing Environment of Selling & Sales
Management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 25 (2): 105111.
Judge, Timothy A., Daniel Heller, and Michael K. Mount. 2002.
Five-factor Model of Personality and Job Satisfaction: A

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3): 530
541. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.530.
Kohli, Ajay K. 1989. Effects of Supervisory Behavior: The
Role of Individual Differences among Salespeople. Journal
of Marketing 53 (4): 4050. doi:10.2307/1251378.
Kottke, Janet L., and Clare E. Sharafinski. 1988. Measuring
Perceived Supervisory and Organizational Support. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48 (4): 10751079.
doi:10.1177/0013164488484024.
Lagace, Rosemary R. 1991. An Exploratory Study of Reciprocal Trust between Sales Managers and Salespersons.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 11 (2):
4958.
Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Whitney. 2001. Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-sectional Research
Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (1), 114121.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114.
Locke, Edwin A. 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job
Satisfaction. In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette, 12971349. New
York: McGraw Hill.
MacInnis, Deborah J. 2011. A Framework for Conceptual
Contributions in Marketing. Journal of Marketing 75 (4):
136154. doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.4.136.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Phillip M. Podsakoff, and Michael
Ahearne. 1998. Some Possible Antecedents and Consequences of In-role and Extra-role Salesperson Performance. Journal of Marketing 62 (3): 8798. doi:10.2307/
1251745.
Maheswaran, Durairaj, and Shelly Chaiken. 1991. Promoting
Systematic Processing in Low-motivation Settings: Effect of
Incongruent Information on Processing and Judgment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61 (1): 13
25. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13.
Mariadoss, Babu J., Chad Milewicz, Sangwon Lee, and Arvin
Sahaym. 2014. Salesperson Competitive Intelligence and
Performance: The Role of Product Knowledge and Sales Force
Automation Usage. Industrial Marketing Management 43
(1): 136145.
Mayer, Roger C., and James H. Davis. 1999. The Effect of the
Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A
Field Quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology
84 (1): 123136. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123.
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and David F. Schoorman.
1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.
Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709734.
Mayer, Rorger C., and Mark B. Gavin. 2005. Trust in
Management and Performance: Who Minds the Shop While
the Employees Watch the Boss? Academy of Management
Journal 48: 874888.
McAllister, Daniel J. 1995. Affect- and Cognition-based Trust
as Foundations for Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 38 (1): 2459.
doi:10.2307/256727.
Moorman, Christine, Rohit Deshpande, and Gerald Zaltman.
1993. Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships. Journal of Marketing 57 (1): 81101. doi:10.2307/
1252059.
Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of
Marketing 58 (3): 2039. doi:10.2307/1252308.
Mousalli, Carole. 2006. Vault Career Guide to Pharmaceuticals
Sales and Marketing. Editor Vault.com.
Mulki, Jay P., Fernando Jaramillo, and William B. Locander.
2006. Effects of Ethical Climate and Supervisory Trust on
Salespersons Job Attitudes and Intentions to Quit. Journal

47

of Personal Selling & Sales Management 26 (1): 2026.

doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134260102.
Muse, Lori A., and Christina L. Stamper. 2007. Perceived
Organizational Support: Evidence for a Mediated Association with Work Performance. Journal of Managerial Issues
19 (4): 517535.
Nederhof, Anton J. 1985. Methods of Coping with Social
Desirability Bias: A Review. European Journal of Social
Psychology 15 (3): 263280. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150303.
Neves, Pedro, and Antnio Caetano. 2009. Commitment to
Change: Contributions to Trust in the Supervisor and Work
Outcomes. Group & Organization Management 34 (6):
623644.
Pazy, Asya. 2011. The Relationship between Pay Contingency
and Types of Perceived Support. EuroMed Journal of
Business 6 (3): 342358. doi:10.1108/14502191111170169.
Perry, Ronald W., and Lawrence D. Mankin. 2007. Organizational
Trust, Trust in the Chief Executive and Work Satisfaction.
Public Personnel Management 36 (2): 165178.
Piercy, Nigel F., David W. Cravens, Nikala Lane, and Douglas
W. Vorhies. 2006. Driving Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors and Salesperson In-role Behavior Performance:
The Role of Management Control and Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 34 (2): 244262. doi:10.1177/0092070305280532.
Ping, Robert A., Jr. 2004. On Assuring Valid Measures for
Theoretical Models Using Survey Data. Journal of Business
Research 57 (2): 125141. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(01)
00297-1.
Plouffe, Christopher R., and Donald W. Barclay. 2007. Salesperson Navigation: The Intraorganizational Dimension of the
Sales Role. Industrial Marketing Management 36 (4): 528
539. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.02.002.
Podsakoff, Phillip M., and Scott B. MacKenzie. 1994. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research 31: 351363.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology
88 (5): 879903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Robert H. Moorman,
and Richard Fetter. 1990. Transformational Leader Behaviors
and Their Effects on Followers Trust in Leader, Satisfaction,
and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. The Leadership
Quarterly 1 (2): 107142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7.
Poon, June M. L., Aliah H. M Salleh, Zizah C. Senik. 2007.
Propensity to Trust as a Moderator of The Relationship
Between Perceived Organizational Support and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Theory and
Behavior 10 (3): 350365.
Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2004. SPSS and
SAS Procedures for Estimating Indirect Effects in Simple
Mediation Models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments
& Computers 36 (4): 717731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553.
Preacher, Kristopher J., Derek D. Rucker, and Andrew F. Hayes.
2007. Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory,
Methods, and Prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research
42 (1): 185227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316.
Rhoades, Linda, and Robert Eisenberger. 2002. Perceived
Organizational Support: A Review of the Literature. Journal
of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 698714. doi:10.1037/00219010.87.4.698.
Rhoades, Linda, Robert Eisenberger, and Stephen Armeli. 2001.
Affective Commitment to the Organization: The Contribution of Perceived Organizational Support. Journal of

48

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Applied Psychology 86 (5): 825836. doi:10.1037/00219010.86.5.825.

Rich, Gregory A. 1997. The Sales Manager as a Role Model:
Effects on Trust, Job Satisfaction, and Performance of
Salespeople. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
25 (4): 319328.
Robertson, Rommel, Christine Gockel, and Elisabeth Brauner.
2012. Trust Your Teammates or Bosses? Differential Effects
of Trust on Transactive Memory, Job Satisfaction, and
Performance. Employee Relations 35 (2): 222242.
Robins, Stephen P., and Timothy A. Judge. 2009. Organizational
Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rutherford, Brian, JungKun Park, and Sang-Lin Han. 2011.
Increasing Job Performance and Decreasing Salesperson
Propensity to Leave: An Examination of an Asian Sales
Force. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 31
(2): 171184.
Settoon, Randall P., Nathan Bennett, and Robert C. Liden. 1996.
Social Exchange in Organization: Perceived Organizational
Support, Leader-member Exchange, and Employee Reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3): 219227.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.219.
Shore, Linda M., and Lois E. Tetrick. 1991. A Construct
Validity Study of the Survey of Perceived Organizational
Support. Journal of Applied Psychology 76 (5): 637643.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.637.
Spector, Paul E. 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment,
Causes and Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stamper, Christina L., and Mark C. Johlke. 2003. The Impact of
Perceived Organizational Support on the Relationship
Between Boundary Spanner Role Stress and Work Outcomes. Journal of Management 29 (4): 569588.
Stan, Simona, Kenneth R. Evans, Todd J. Arnold, and Gregory
T. McAmis. 2012. The Moderating Influence of Organizational Support on the Development of Salesperson Job
Performance: Can an Organization Provide Too Much
Support? Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
4 (Fall): 405419.
Stinglhamber, Florence, David De Cremer, and Liesbeth
Mercken. 2006. Perceived Support as a Mediator of the
Relationship between Justice and Trust. Group and Organization Management 31 (4): 442468. doi:10.1177/105960
1106286782.

Stringer, Leronardo. 2006. The Link between the Quality of the

SupervisorEmployee Relationship and the Level of the
Employees Job Satisfaction. Public Organization Review 6
(2): 125142. doi:10.1007/s11115-006-0005-0.
Tallman, Rick. 2007. Does Trust Matter? Perceptions, Trust and
Job Satisfaction of Hospital Nurses. International Journal
of Business Research 7 (4): 166
Tan, Hwee H., and Christy S. Tan. 2000. Toward the Differentiation of Trust in Supervisor and Trust in Organization.
Genetic, Social and Psychology Monographs 126: 241260.
Tanner, John F. Jr., Michael Ahearne, Thomas W. Leigh,
Charlotte H. Mason, and William C. Moncrief. 2005.
CRM in Sales-intensive Organizations: A Review and
Future Directions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 25 (2): 169180.
Thibault, John W., and Harold H. Kelley. 1959. The Social
Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ward, Edward A. 1997. Autonomous Work Groups: A Field
Study of Correlates of Satisfaction. Psychological Reports
80: 6062.
Wayne, Sandy J, Lynn M. Shore, and Robert C. Liden. 1997.
Perceived Organizational Support and LeaderMember
Exchange: A Social Exchange Perspective. Academy of
Management Journal 40 (1): 82111. doi:10.2307/257021.
Whitener, Ellen. 1997. The Impact of Human Resource Activities
on Employee Trust. Human Resource Management Review
7 (4): 389404. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(97)90026-7.
Whitener, Ellen. 2001. Do High Commitment Human
Resource Practices Affect Employee Commitment? A
Cross-level Analysis Using Hierarchical Linear Modelling.
Journal of Management 27: 515535.
Williams, Michelle. 2001. In Whom We Trust: Group Membership as a Affective Context for Trust Development.
Academy of Management Review 26 (3): 377397.
Yang, Jixia, and Kevin W. Mossholder. 2010. Examing the Effects
of Trust in Leaders: A Bases-and-Foci Approach. The
Leadership Quarterly 21 (Summer): 5063. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2009.10.004.
Zhang, Ann Y., Anne S. Tsui, Lynda J. Song, Chaoping Li, and
Liangding Jia. 2008. How Do I Trust Thee? The Employeeorganization Relationship, Supervisory Support, and Middle
Manager Trust in the Organization. Human Resource
Management 47 (1): 111132. doi:10.1002/hrm.20200.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

49

Appendix 1. POS, trust and job satisfactionrelationships studied in past literature and in current study
Authors (year)
Tallman (2007)
Yang and Mossholder (2010)
Aryee, Budhwar, and
Chen (2002)
Robertson, Gockel, and
Brauner (2012)
Brashear et al. (2003)
Braun et al. (2013)
Cunningham and
Macgregor (2000)
Flaherty and Pappas (2000)
Gilstrap and Collins (2012)
Goris, Vaught, and Pettit (2003)
Mulki, Jaramillo, and
Locander (2006)
Rich (1997)
Babakus et al. (1996)
Colakoglu, Culha, and
Atay (2010)
Muse and Stamper (2007)
Piercy et al. (2006)
Poon et al. (2007)
Rutherford, Park, and Han (2011)
Stamper and Johlke (2003)
Stinglhamber, De Cremer, and
Mercken (2006)
Al-Sakarnah and
Alhawary (2009)
Chen, Aryee, and Lee (2005)
DeConinck (2010)
Tan and Tan (2000)
Whitener (2001)
Zhang et al. (2008)
Connell, Ferres, and
Travaglione (2003)
Neves and Caetano (2009)
Chan, Taylor, and
Markham (2008)
Current Study

Context

POS

122 nurses
210 employeesupervisor matched responses in a state
operated health care system
179 dyads of full time employees in a public sector firm

TSI

TMI TSD

383 employees across various companies

TMD

JS

402 B2B salespeople

39 teams form academic research and employees
230 service station and 535 telephone industry employees

129
206
629
333

automobile salesmen. Focused on selling function

professional employees in industrial firm
employees from the industrial sector
salespeople in a pharmaceuticals company

183 salesperson-manager dyads from B2B sales firms

186 salespeople in an international services firm
198 hotel employees

313
214
108
213
235
212

employees from a manufacturing firm

salespeople selling advertising space
bank officers and managers in Malaysia
retail sales employees in Korea
boundary spanning salespeople
employees in a telecom company

402 various employees

190 employeesupervisor dyads from China

Two samples (248 marketing managers)
220 convenience sample of various employees
1689 employees in Credit Unions
1128 MBA students, middle management
275 employees in various positions

120 employees from a metallurgic factory

374 respondents from health care homes and others

157 salespeople from biotech industry

POS: perceived organizational support as independent variable; TSI: trust in supervisor (manager) as independent variable; TMI: trust in management as
independent variable; TSD: trust in supervisor (manager) as dependent variable; TMD: trust in management as dependent variable; JS: job satisfaction as
dependent variable

50

N. Pomirleanu and B. John Mariadoss

Appendix 2. Scale items, loadings and reliability

Construct
FS*

OS*

Trust in supervisor

Trust in organization

Job satisfaction

Item

Loading

Managed care
Medical communications
Medical liaisons
Sales administration
Sales automation
Sales training
Targeting and analysis
Fleet admin
Human resources
Sample accountability
My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving
workers
I feel a strong loyalty toward my manager
I have a complete faith in the integrity of my manager
I feel quite confident that my manager will always try to treat me
fairly
Senior management would never try to gain an advantage by
deceiving workers
I feel a strong loyalty toward senior management
I have a complete faith in the integrity of senior management
I feel quite confident that senior management will always try to treat
me fairly
How satisfied are you with your job overall?
How exciting do you find your work?
How worthwhile do you consider the time spent at your job?
Would you advise a friend to take a similar job at X?
Would you recommend X as a place to work?

0.57
0.74
0.68
0.72
0.63
0.62
0.56
0.78
0.63
0.59
0.90

Composite
reliability

Cronbachs
alpha

0.83

0.85

0.71

0.60

0.95

0.97

0.90

0.97

0.96

0.94

0.93
0.93
0.90
0.82
0.85
0.83
0.84
0.92
0.91
0.94
0.94
0.85

Note: *-Seven-point scale: 7 (above expectations) to 1 (below expectations) of salespersons evaluation of the Quality of Service provided for.

Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of Routledge
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.