Heterogeneity in Sales Districts:
Beyond Individual-Level Predictors
of Satisfaction and Performance
R. Venkatesh
University of Pittsburgh
Goutam Challagalla
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ajay K. Kohli
Emory University
This article examines the influence of heterogeneity within
a sales unit on the unit's satisfaction and performance.
Sales unit refers to a set of salespersons working out of the
same office and for the same supervisor, and heterogene-
ity refers to salespersons' dispersion or variance on key
dimensions. Specifically, drawing on theories in social
psychology, the authors study the influence of sales unit
heterogeneity in terms of(I) demographic characteristics
(e.g., gender dispersion), (2) skills and rewards (e.g., re-
ward dispersion), and (3) goal orientations (e.g., learning
orientation dispersion) on a sales unit's performance and
job satisfaction levels. The hypotheses developed are
tested using data from a study involving 476 salespeople
belonging to 105 sales units in a large organization. The
authors find that the focal heterogeneity variables account
for nearly 25 percent of the total variance explained by the
full set of independent variables included in the model.
Research in sales management has identified several
factors that affect salespeople's satisfaction and perfor-
mance (see Brown and Peterson 1994). These include fac-
tors such as career stage (cf. Cron 1984), competence
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Volume 29, No. 3, pages 238-254.
Copyright 9 2001 by Academy of Marketing Science.
(Kohli and Jaworski 1994), rewards (Tyagi 1985), and goal
orientations (Kohli, Shervani, and Challagalla 1998;
Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar 1994).
The purpose of this study is to complement this stream
of research by examining the influence of heterogeneity or
dispersion within a sales unit on the unit's levels of job sat-
isfaction and performance. Specifically, we examine the
effects of three types of intraunit heterogeneity: (1) hetero-
geneity in demographic characteristics (e.g., gender dis-
persion), (2) heterogeneity in skills and rewards (e.g.,
reward dispersion), and (3) heterogeneity in goal orienta-
tions (e.g., dispersion in learning orientation). Our basic
premise is that sales units with a wide dispersion on demo-
graphic characteristics, skills and rewards, and goal orien-
tations influence their member salespersons very differ-
ently than sales units that are relatively homogeneous on
these characteristics. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the first study to examine the influence of heterogeneity
within a sales unit.
Our hypotheses are grounded in several social-psycho-
logical processes, two of which are particularly central--
social comparison and interpersonal competition. Social
comparison theory, for example, suggests that salesper-
sons tend to compare their abilities and achievements with
others who are similar to themselves (cf. Festinger 1954;
Wheeler 1991). Thus, the composition of a sales unit in
terms of its similarity or dissimilarity is likely to influence
the extent to which unit members engage in comparisons.

Our broad thesis is that heterogeneity in a sales unit shapes
sociopsychological processes, thereby affecting the sales
unit's job satisfaction and performance levels.
The present study provides insights into several mana-
gerially relevant issues such as: What are the conse-
quences of maintaining a sales unit that is diverse versus
homogeneous in its demographic composition? What are
the implications of having a sales unit with salespersons
who differ markedly in their work motivation? How is a
salesperson affected by the differentials in rewards across
salespersons in a sales unit? These are important questions
that have not been addressed to date and motivate the pres-
ent study.
The conceptualization and findings of this study are
best suited to sales units (e.g., sales districts) that are com-
posed of independent salespeople in a branch or district
sales office. In such sales structures, all salespeople within
the branch report to the same supervisor, who is responsi-
ble for assigning quotas and allocating rewards. Salespeo-
ple are independent in the sense that they have their own
sales quotas and responsibilities. By virtue of working out
of the same branch office (instead of out of their homes,
say) salespersons typically have the opportunity to interact
informally with their peers. Taken together, such sales set-
tings are likely to induce social-psychological processes
such as social comparison.
Several Fortune 500 companies in diverse industries
(e.g., Xerox, W. W. Grainger, BellSouth, 3M, Illinois Tool
Works, Principal Financial Group, Prudential) have sales
organizations for which the findings of the present study
are relevant. ] The results of this study may also be relevant
for sales organizations in which salespersons have consid-
erable opportunities to interact with each other (e.g., call
centers, retail sales).
HETEROGENEITY IN SALES
UNITS: HYPOTHESES
Theoretical
Underpinnings
We develop our hypotheses by relying on several theo-
ries of social psychology that emphasizes both the social
issues within an individual's environment such as interac-
tion, social comparison, and learning, as well as the associ-
ated psychological concerns such as craving for superior-
ity, attribution, and perceptions of fairness.
In arguing that heterogeneity or dispersion in a sales
unit influences satisfaction and performance levels in the
sales unit, we primarily rely on three theories of social psy-
chology. The theory of social comparison (cf. Festinger
1954; Salancik and Pfeffer 1978; Wheeler 1991)suggests
that social comparisons occur because individuals have a
Venkateshet al. / INFLUENCEOF HETEROGENEITY 239
natural urge to evaluate their abilities, beliefs, and opin-
ions by comparing them with those of other individuals in
similar positions. Such social comparisons can give rise to
affective responses such as satisfaction or dissonance (el.
Tesser 1988). Demography theory holds that similarity in
age or tenure is positively related to similarity in shared
experiences and cohort effects (cf. Wiersema and Bird
1993). These, in turn, shape group processes such as com-
munication, cooperation, turnover, and performance (cf.
Milliken and Martins 1996; O'Reilly, Caldwell, and
Barnett 1989; Pfeffer 1983; Zenger and Lawrence 1989).
Finally, the theory of interpersonal competition proposes
that competitive behavior on the part of an individual
partly reflects striving to obtain more rewards than others
(cf. Deutsch 1949). It also reflects a desire for perfor-
mance superiority (Bond 1982; Sauers and Bass 1990).
Whereas interpersonal competition can induce higher per-
formance (Weinstein and Holzbach 1973), it can also
result in anxiety among salespersons and fewer interac-
tions among them (cf. Bettencourt, Brewer, Croak, and
Miller 1992).
It is important to note that not all of the above theories
are relevant for developing every hypothesis proposed
later in the article. We selectively draw on the one(s) that
have the ability to shed light on the particular relationships
being proposed in each hypothesis.
Hypotheses
Development
We examine the effects of three types of intraunit heter-
ogeneity on a unit's satisfaction and performance: (1) het-
erogeneity in demographic characteristics, (2) heteroge-
neity in skills and rewards, and (3) heterogeneity in goal
orientations. Demographic heterogeneity refers to disper-
sion in the inherent characteristics of salespersons. In this
category of independent variables, we examine the role of
career stage dispersion and gender dispersion. Under
skills and rewards, we investigate the effects of compe-
tence dispersion and reward dispersion within the unit.
Under goal orientation heterogeneity, we study the role of
dispersion in the learning orientation and prove orienta-
tion of salespersons. These variables (e.g., career stage)
have been previously studied at the individual salesperson
level; in the present study, we focus on heterogeneity
within a sales unit on the same variables (e.g., career stage
heterogeneity within a sales district).
These six variables are argued to be related to two
unit-level dependent variables: (1) average level of job sat-
isfaction of salespeople in the unit and (2) the unit's sales
performance (see Figure 1). Sales unit job satisfaction
refers to a unit's attitudes or affective feelings toward their
job, work environment, or organization (cf. Churchill,
240 J O U R N A L O F THE A C A D E M Y OF M A R K E T I N G SCIENCE
FIGURE 1
Influence of Intraunit Heterogeneity on Sales Unit Satisfaction and Performance
Demographic Heterogeneity
9 Career Stage Dispersion (HI, -; H2, -)
9 Gender Dispersion (H3, +; H4, -)
Heterogeneity in Skills & Rewards
9 Competence Dispersion 0-15, +; H6, +)
9 Reward Dispersion (1-I7,+; H8, +)
Heterogeneity in Goal Orientations
9 Learning Orientation Dispersion (I-19,-; HI0, -)
9 Prove Orientation Dispersion (HI 1, -; H12, -)
NOTE: H1 through H12 represent the study's 12 hypotheses. An odd (even) numbered hypothesis links the corresponding antecedent variable to job satis-
faction (performance). The hypothesized sign of a relationship is shown next to the hypothesis number.
Ford, and Walker 1976). Sales unit performance refers to a
unit's sales-related achievements relative to other units
within the company.
Influence of Heterogeneity in
Demographic Characteristics
Career stage dispersion. A powerful construct in sales
force literature that captures the manifestations of tenure
along with its associated psychological trappings is the ca-
reer stage of individual salespeople. Cron (1984) identi-
fies four career stages that salespeople go through during
their professional tenure---exploration, establishment,
maintenance, and disengagement. Whereas Cron and col-
leagues (cf. Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988; Cron and
Slocum 1986) focus on the influence of a salesperson's ca-
reer stage on his or her work attitudes and performance, we
examine the influence of the heterogeneity in career stages
of salespersons in a unit on unit-level job satisfaction and
performance.
A key finding in demography theory is that demo-
graphic similarity (i.e., narrow dispersion on demographic
characteristics) results in positive consequences such as
higher communication, whereas demographic dissimilar-
ity (i.e., wide dispersion) has the opposite effect. For
example, Zenger and Lawrence (1989) found that age sim-
ilarity and tenure similarity are positively related to fre-
quency of communication, and O'Reilly et al. (1989) note
that tenure similarity leads to lower turnover. Similarity
fosters attraction and use of a common language, and
results in greater levels of interpersonal communication
S U M M E R 2001
Sales Unit Outcomes
~M m Sales Unit's Job Satisfaction
Sales Unit's Performance
(Wiersema and Bird 1993; Zenger and Lawrence 1989).
When the interaction is voluntary (as in our case), greater
amounts of interaction lead to greater learning as well as
greater social recognition, thereby leading to greater
satisfaction.
In contrast, differences (or wide dispersion) in age and
tenure result in experiential and 'language' differences,
thereby leading to lower communication (Schneider 1983,
1987; Zenger and Lawrence 1989). Employees with lon-
ger tenures have been through different societal conditions
and job employment conditions and have different atti-
tudes from their colleagues with shorter tenures, which in
turn lowers interaction levels among group members (see
Elder 1975; Vroom and Pahl 1971). Jackson et al. (1991)
note that dissimilarity in age and tenure results in dissatis-
faction and employee turnover. In the context of career
stages, the preceding arguments suggest that salespersons
in a sales unit with narrow career stage dispersion are likely
to have higher levels of interaction and mutual attraction
leading to higher job satisfaction in the unit (cf. Colarelli
and Boos 1992; Peterson 1983; Pierce 1998). 5 Thus,
Hypothesis 1: The wider the career stage dispersion in a
sales unit, the lower the unit's job satisfaction.
Narrow career stage dispersion implies that individuals
belonging to the unit occupy similar positions and share
similar responsibilities. Social comparison theory sug-
gests that these similarities are likely to encourage sales-
persons to compare their personal skills and abilities with
those of their peers in the unit. Furthermore, individuals

with similar personal characteristics have high valences
for similar rewards (cf. Churchill, Ford, and Walker 1983).
To the extent that there are real limits on the number of re-
wards that can be given out (e.g., promotions cannot be
given to all people), similar individuals are likely to exert
greater effort or strive to attain those rewards and signal re-
ward superiority. In other words, greater personal similar-
ity is likely to result in higher levels of interpersonal
competition. The higher striving or effort (to attain reward
superiority) suggests that the performance levels would be
higher (cf. Brown and Peterson 1994).
In addition to the striving for rewards that would likely
enhance performance, competition also manifests itself as
a striving for performance superiority (cf. Sauers and Bass
1990). In other words, even when no rewards are at stake,
similar individuals are likely to strive for higher levels of
performance if only to acquire the feeling of accomplish-
ment and associated superiority within a peer group. This
desire for performance superiority is also expected to lead
to greater effort and, in turn, enhance performance (cf.
Weinstein and Holzbach 1973). Thus,
Hypothesis 2: The wider the career stage dispersion in a
sales unit, the lower the performance of the unit.
Gender dispersion. Several studies suggest that the
presence of the opposite gender causes group members to
display greater social arousal. McCann, Ostrom, and
Tyner (1985) report greater facilitation in mixed-gender
groups. Fields and Blum (1997) and Aries (1976) also sug-
gest that members of mixed-gender groups tend to interact
more and are less competitive than members of homoge-
neous or narrow gender dispersion groups. Furthermore,
as the proportion of members from the minority gender
within a group increases, there is broader consideration of
ideas from all members (see Craig and Sherif 1986). Ely
(1994) found that women behave in more supportive ways
toward their peers in gender-balanced groups than in
male-dominated groups. Greater interaction and consider-
ation of others' ideas are likely to foster greater satisfaction
among members of mixed-gender groups.
Hypothesis 3: The wider the gender dispersion in a sales
unit, the higher the unit's job satisfaction.
There is evidence to suggest that peers in same-gender
groups tend to exhibit more individualistic behavior and a
greater task orientation than members of mixed-gender
groups (see Kent and McGrath 1969; Wyer and
Malinowski 1972). We expect salespersons in such units to
engage in social comparisons with other members because
individuals tend to evaluate their abilities with similar
others (of. Festinger 1954; Salancik and Pfeffer 1978).
Furthermore, salespeople's valences for various rewards
are likely to be similar in single-gender groups, leading to
Venkateshet al. / INFLUENCEOF HETEROGENEITY 241
greater interpersonal competition--striving for perfor-
mance superiority and externally mediated rewards (cf.
Sauers and Bass 1990). This, in turn, is likely to lead to
higher performance in the sales unit as compared with
mixed-gender units.
Hypothesis 4: The wider the gender dispersion in a sales
unit, the lower the unit's performance.
Influence of Heterogeneity in Skills
(Competence) and Rewards
Competence dispersion. Research on diversity pro-
vides a basis for positive outcomes when there is diversity
in skills or knowledge (cf. Bantel and Jackson 1989;
Milliken and Martins 1996). We define sales units in
which salespersons have diverse skills and abilities as hav-
ing a wide competence dispersion (i.e., an assortment of
different skills and abilities are represented in such a sales
unit). For example, some may have excellent product
knowledge, whereas others may exhibit strong sales quali-
fication or closing skills. On the other hand, when sales-
people within a unit possess similar types of selling skills,
competence dispersion is narrow.
Consider a sales unit in which the competence disper-
sion is high. In such a sales unit, social comparison theory
suggests that individuals are likely to see each other as
possessing skills or abilities that they themselves do not
possess. This is likely to spur a desire on their part to ac-
quire those skills or improve themselves on those dimen-
sions. In addition, the wide competence dispersion allows
for reciprocity in that salespersons can offer each other
something in exchange for acquiring their respective spe-
cialized skills. The possibility of reciprocity encourages
exchanges that provide for professional growth for the
salespeople and hence are likely to result in greater job sat-
isfaction. Such an effect is unlikely to occur if the compe-
tence dispersion is narrow, in which case all salespeople
are very similar to each other.
Hypothesis 5: The wider the competence dispersion in a
sales unit, the greater the unit's job satisfaction.
There is evidence in the diversity literature to suggest
that a peer group with a diverse skill set is likely to display
greater creativity. Bantel and Jackson (1989) found a posi-
tive relationship between functional diversity and the ex-
tent of innovation. Ancona and Caldwell (1988) show that
although skill diversity can lead to short-term inefficien-
cies, it leads to creative outcomes over time. These find-
ings suggest that the exchange of ideas in a sales unit with
diverse skills leads to better and more creative overall sell-
ing and hence higher performance.
242 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
Hypothesis 6: The wider the competence dispersion in a
sales unit, the greater the unit's performance.
Reward dispersion. Organizational theorists have ar-
gued that dispersion in salaries or wages within
workgroups can have a bearing on the nature of social rela-
tions within the groups and the levels of effort and commit-
ment (cf. Pfeffer and Davis-Blake 1992; Pfeffer and
Langton 1993). In sales force settings, intangible perqui-
sites such as praise or awards can also influence attitude
and behavior. We use the term reward dispersion to cap-
ture dispersion in both tangible and intangible rewards
within a sales unit.
Sales units with wide reward dispersion are character-
ized by some salespersons receiving big rewards and
others receiving relatively small rewards. Wide reward
dispersion signals to the employees that the firm distin-
guishes between good and poor performers. By doing so, it
reinforces the salience of job-related performance (cf.
Leventhal 1976). The message to good and poor perform-
ers alike is that there is an incentive for good performance
(cf. Pfeffer and Langton 1988). Salespeople are likely to
view such a system as being fair, and therefore this is likely
to lead to feelings of satisfaction on their part (cf. Mitchell,
Lewin, and Lawler 1990). In contrast, when reward disper-
sion is narrow in a sales unit, salespeople are likely to feel
that regardless of their effort or performance, they are
likely to receive the same level of rewards as their peers. In
such units, salespeople may resent their supervisor for tak-
ing the easy way out by rewarding everyone more or less
equally (as opposed to being more discriminating). Thus,
narrow reward dispersion is likely to reduce salespeople's
job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 7: The wider the reward dispersion in a sales
unit, the higher the unit's job satisfaction.
As noted earlier, wide reward dispersion suggests to a
salesperson that the "system" (i.e., supervisor, incentive
program) is sensitive to salespersons' differential contri-
butions. In addition, wide reward dispersion indicates to
all salespersons except those at the very top that there are
real opportunities for earning bigger rewards. The exis-
tence of such opportunities is likely to encourage salesper-
sons to focus on their jobs, thereby enhancing perfor-
mance (Hackman and Oldham 1980). On the other hand, a
narrow reward dispersion is likely to create the impression
that the link between performance and rewards is weak (cf.
Leonard 1990), particularly if salespersons perceive sig-
nificant differences in the performance across salesper-
sons within the unit. Expectancy theory suggests that
salespeople's instrumentality estimates, and consequently
motivation, are likely to be low because of the perceived
weak linkage between performance and rewards in such
SUMMER2001
cases (cf. Lawler 1973). In turn, this is likely to decrease
salespeople's performance.
Hypothesis 8: The wider the reward dispersion in a sales
unit, the higher the performance of the unit.
Influence of Heterogeneity
in Goal Orientations
Two types of goal orientations are discussed in sales lit-
erature. Salespersons with a learning orientation have a
strong desire to improve and master their selling skills and
abilities and view achievement situations as opportunities
to improve their competence (Dweck and Leggett 1988;
Sujan et al. 1994). Salespeople with aperformance orien-
tation have a strong desire to prove themselves on perfor-
mance metrics that count (Ames and Archer 1988; Sujan
et al. 1994). Recent research further partitions perfor-
mance orientation into two dimensions--prove and avoid
(Elliot and Church 1997; VandeWalle and Cummings
1997). Prove (also referred to as "approach") is defined as
the desire to prove one's ability and gain favorable judg-
ments about it, while avoidis defined as the desire to avoid
the disproving of one's ability and to avoid negative judg-
ments about it (Elliot and Church 1997; VandeWalle and
Cummings 1997). Most studies show that the prove
dimension of performance orientation has positive influ-
ences such as enhancing task involvement and improving
performance (e.g., Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and
Harackiewicz 1996; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto,
and Elliot 1997; cf. VandeWalle and Cummings 1997 for
exception). The "avoid" dimension has been shown to
have negative consequences on individuals. Our focus in
this article is on the "prove" dimension of performance
orientation. To be succinct, we henceforth refer to prove
performance orientation simply as prove orientation.
Learning orientation dispersion. Since individuals
with a learning orientation believe in a positive effort-mas-
tery relationship, they place a high value on feedback and
view it as diagnostic information (Dweck and Leggett
1988; Farr, Hofmann, and Ringenback 1993; VandeWalle
and Cummings 1997). Likewise, feedback seeking is
viewed as a self-regulation strategy and as a means of con-
tinued effort (VandeWalle and Cummings 1997). In sales
units with wide learning orientation dispersion, some
salespeople are much more interested in improving their
skills and abilities than others. Those with a learning ori-
entation are likely to engage in feedback exchanges as a
means for enhancing their skill set (Butler 1993;
VandeWalle and Cummings 1997). However, their at-
tempts to seek or create an environment that is conducive
to these feedback exchanges are likely to be thwarted by
those who lack the motivation for mastery. Thus, salespeo-
ple with a learning orientation are likely to be frustrated by

the attitude of peers who lack similar aspirations. On the
other hand, salespeople in units with a narrow dispersion
on learning orientation have similar attitudes toward im-
proving their skills and abilities, thereby leading to a more
harmonious environment. Thus, we expect narrow disper-
sion on learning orientation to be positively related to a
unit's job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 9: The wider the learning orientation dis-
persion within a sales unit, the lower the unit's job
satisfaction.
Moreover, in units with a wide learning orientation dis-
persion, the lack of desire on the part of some salespeople
to learn, improve, and exchange ideas is likely to frustrate
even the salespersons with a high learning orientation, di-
minishing their urge to acquire new skills and, in turn,
leading to lower performance. Likewise, salespersons
with a low learning orientation are likely to find the queries
and suggestions of high-learning orientation salespersons
meddlesome. Overall, this is likely to diminish the perfor-
mance of the unit.
Hypothesis 10: The wider the learning orientation disper-
sion in a sales unit, the lower the unit's performance.
Prove orientation dispersion. Salespeople with a prove
orientation focus on demonstrating their proficiency rela-
tive to others and on being judged able (Harackiewicz et al.
1997; VandeWalle and Cummings 1997). They frequently
compare their performance to supervisory expectations
and the performance of their peers (VandeWalle and
Cummings 1997). Wide prove orientation dispersion im-
plies that some salespeople have a strong desire to closely
monitor and compare their performance with that of their
peers, whereas other salespersons in the sales unit are
much less focused on making such comparisons. Further-
more, a wide prove orientation dispersion implies that
some salespeople work at demonstrating their abilities to
others in the sales unit, whereas other salespersons are less
interested in such activity. The heterogeneity in motiva-
tions is likely to lead to tensions because the salespeople
who prefer to be "left alone" are likely to be irked by the
frequent monitoring, comparisons, and impression-
management activities of salespeople with a high prove
orientation. Overall, this is likely to lower the level of job
satisfaction in the sales unit.
Hypothesis 11: The wider the prove orientation dispersion
within a unit, the lower the unit's job satisfaction.
In sales units with wide prove orientation dispersion,
individuals with low prove orientation have lower task in-
volvement than those with a high prove orientation (Elliot
and Harackiewicz 1996). Salespersons with high prove
orientation are unlikely to feel much competitive pressure
Venkateshet al. / INFLUENCEOF HETEROGENEITY 243
from their peers within the unit because only a subset of
the salespersons in the unit (specifically, the other sales-
persons with a high prove orientation) have an interest in
demonstrating their abilities and performing against their
manager's metrics (Harackiewicz et al. 1997). This being
the case, the competitive arousal is likely to be relatively
low. In addition, salespersons with low prove orientation
are likely to withdraw further from the competitive game
in face of aggressive impression management activities of
salespeople with high prove orientation and their constant
monitoring and comparing of each other's performance
(VandeWalle and Cummings 1997). Thus, the drive to per-
form for salespersons with high and low prove orientation
is likely to be lower, leading to lower sales performance at
the sales unit level.
Hypothesis 12: The wider the prove orientation disper-
sion in a sales unit, the lower the unit's performance.
RESEARCH METHOD
Data Collection
Since the primary focus of the study is on investigating
the influence of heterogeneity in a sales unit, we selected
an industrial sales company with a branch sales structure
in which salespeople spend a significant amount of time
working from their office. The study was conducted in one
company for one main reason--it offers greater control
over exogenous variables and enhances the internal valid-
ity of the study. Since it is the first study of its kind to the
best of our knowledge, our intent was to keep the study
tight by eliminating as many alternative explanations as
possible for the results. The single-company nature of the
study suggests that prudence is warranted when generaliz-
ing the findings of the study to other contexts. As McGrath
and Brinberg (1983) point out, however, generalizeability
is not something that can be established in a single study;
rather, it is established or refuted during a number of dif-
ferent studies, each using a somewhat different context,
sample, and measurement schema. We discuss these
points further in the Discussion section.
The participating company has $1.5 billion in revenues
and has been in existence for more than 90 years. It is one
of the largest printers in North America with nationwide
facilities and has more than a hundred sales locations in
strategically located market areas. The company provides
total print management products and services to Fortune
1,000 customers, producing and distributing forms, labels,
direct response, and commercial printing. The sales orga-
nization is structured around geographic territories. The
average district has six salespeople, and metropolitan
areas tend to have multiple districts. Several Fortune 500
companies have similar sales organizations (e.g., Xerox,
244 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
W. W. Grainger, BellSouth, 3M, Illinois Tool Works, Prin-
cipal Financial Group, Prudential).
The salespeople in our sample are independent, mean-
ing that they have their own accounts, quotas, and territory.
They are completely responsible for selling to these
accounts. They, however, do assist national account man-
agers occasionally for selling to accounts within their ter-
ritory. Once again, this type of sales organization is com-
mon in many Fortune 500 companies. The compensation
is a mix of commission and base salary. The proportion of
variable compensation to fixed compensation is roughly
55:45, with sales contests accounting for 3 to 4 percent of
their total income. The variable compensation is some-
what higher than is found in most Fortune 500 companies.
Performance results are typically communicated individu-
ally and are not posted publicly. Overall, the sales organi-
zation in our study is fairly typical of that in many, if not
most, major corporations.
Data collection from salespeople. A questionnaire was
developed for gathering responses from salespeople. This
questionnaire captured the four career stages, learning ori-
entation, prove orientation, rewards, job satisfaction, and
demographic and job context information. We forwarded
617 survey packets, one for each salesperson, to the partic-
ipating company, which mailed the packets to the sales dis-
tricts. Each packet consisted of a survey, postage-paid
return envelope, and a letter from the sales vice president
of the company. The letter explained the purpose of the
study and assured salespeople complete anonymity. Sales-
people were asked to mall the surveys directly to the re-
searchers. Approximately 10 days after the first mailing, a
reminder letter from the sales vice president was sent to
all salespeople and sales managers. Another 2 weeks
later, second survey packets, identical to the first, were
sent to all salespeople and sales managers. These efforts
yielded 476 responses from salespeople for a response
rate of 77 percent.
Data collection from sales managers. A packet similar
to the one sent to salespeople, but with a different ques-
tionnaire, was mailed to sales managers at each of the 116
districts. The manager questionnaire captured competence
dispersion, competence mean, performance, and unit de-
mographics. The data collection process was identical to
that of salespeople. Responses were received from 105
sales managers, for a response rate of 91 percent. Man-
agers indicated that the average unit size is six.
Sample characteristics. Ninety-three respondents are
female. On average, respondents have about 5 years of
selling experience at the company, 6 years of total selling
experience, and 9 years of total work experience. Respon-
dents spend about 46 percent of their time working from
their office, about 47 percent of their time working in the
field, and the remainder (i.e., 7%) working from home.
SUMMER2001
Seventy-seven percent of respondents reported having
work-related communications more than once a day with
their peers, while 19 percent did so "a few times per week."
Thus, 96 percent of our respondents have frequent
work-related interactions with their peers, suggesting that
there is a strong basis for peer-related sociopsychological
processes to occur within our study context. Finally, pre-
test interviews conducted with salespeople and managers
confirmed that salespeople in the sample shared selling in-
sights, talked of their accomplishments and failures,
mentored junior salespeople, and more generally inter-
acted at a professional level, thus suggesting that the sam-
ple is appropriate for the study.
Measure Development
and Pretesting
While existing scales were used for measuring several
of the constructs, for a few constructs, scales were unavail-
able or were otherwise limited in their applicability to the
context of the study. It was therefore necessary to adapt
some existing measures or develop new ones. The partici-
pating company assisted the researchers in adapting exist-
ing and new measures to suit their context. Once the mea-
sures were finalized, the instrument was pretested at a
sales office of the company. Six salespeople from this
office were provided a questionnaire and were asked to
identify scale items that were ambiguous and/or repetitive.
Based on the inputs received, some items were eliminated,
others modified, and new items added. Overall, few con-
cerns were reported by the respondents, suggesting that
the questionnaire was ready for final administration.
Measures
When using established scales, we made an effort to
preserve the wording of the original scales. Only minor
modifications were made to suit the context. The scales are
presented in the appendix. Unless indicated otherwise,
salespeople are the respondents. The dependent variables
and the "root" independent variables (e.g., career
stagemas opposed to heterogenity in career stage) have a
reliability coefficient higher than the .70 level recom-
mended by Nunnally (1978). The coefficient alpha for
competence dispersion and performance are not reported
because they are formative scales.
Career stage dispersion. The four career stages were
measured using items drawn from Cron and Slocum
(1986). The original scale of Cron and Slocum (which is
adapted from Super, Zelkowitz, and Thompson 1981) has
56 items. We elected to use a subset of the original scale to
reduce respondent fatigue by keeping the questionnaire
length manageable. We used a two-step process for select-
ing the items. In the first step, we selected items that cap-

ture the breadth of the construct. For example, during the
exploration stage, salespeople are concerned about finding
the "right" occupation. The items we selected (e.g., De-
ciding what I really want to do for a living; Making sure of
my current occupational choice) capture this notion. In the
second step, when items in the original scale were quite
similar to each other, we selected a subset of them to save
space. This two-step process yielded 16 items to measure
the four career stages--exploration, establishment, main-
tenance, and disengagement.
Fifteen of the 16 items used in the study are identical to
the original scale. In the course of the pretest, 1 item was
modified from "advancing to a more responsible position"
to "advancing to a higher position in my company" for
better clarity. The career stage items were scored by sales-
people on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all concerned
to very concerned.
The average score on each of the four career stage
scales was computed for each salesperson. The highest
score among these was used to assign a salesperson to a
career stage (cf. Cron and Slocum 1986). For example, ifa
salesperson's average score on the establishment scale was
the highest among the four, then the salesperson was cate-
gorized as being in the establishment stage.3After catego-
rizing the salespeople, the career stages were assigned the
values 1 through 4, with 1 and 4 representing exploration
and disengagement stages, respectively. Next, the standard
deviation of career stages of all respondents from each unit
was computed and used as a measure of the career stage
dispersion of a unit.
Gender dispersion. We first computed the proportion of
majority gender relative to group size for each sales unit.
(1 - proportion of majority gender) was used as a measure
of gender dispersion. The computed measure of gender
dispersion ranges from 0 to 0.5, with 0.5 indicating the
widest possible gender dispersion.
Competence dispersion. Managers were respondents to
the competence dispersion items. Specifically, unit man-
agers were asked to report on a 5-point scale the extent to
which salespersons within their unit were similar or dis-
similar on four competence items. The four-item compe-
tence scale was adapted from Kohli and Jaworski's (1994)
five-item scale on individual salesperson competence. The
items had to be adapted because our study context is
broader than that of Kohli and Jaworski's (i.e., industrial
sales vs. automobile sales), and our unit of analysis is also
different from Kohli and Jaworski's, thereby requiring mi-
nor modifications to items. For example, the item "I trust
my coworkers' judgment of relevant business matters"
cannot be used to measure dispersion of competence in a
sales unit. As such, it was truncated to "judgment about
relevant business matters" Of Kohli and Jaworski's five
items, one item was dropped during the pretest (i.e., the
item "know a lot about selling" was deemed too similar to
Venkateshet al. / INFLUENCEOF HETEROGENEITY 245
"knowledgeable about selling"). The computed mean
score for the four items represents the unit's competence
dispersion (because the scale anchors capture the extent of
dissimilarity or assortment in competency among the
members).
Reward dispersion. Four items were developed by the
researchers to assess the rewards received by an individual
salesperson relative to others in his or her unit. The items
were measured using a 7-point scoring format ranging
from much worse to much better. Three items capture three
tangible rewards (e.g., salary + commissions), while one
item captures intangible rewards (i.e., recognition from
the manager). The reward dispersion within a unit was
measured by the standard deviation of reward scores of
salespersons within the unit.
Learning orientation and prove orientation disper-
sions. As noted earlier, three goal orientations--learning,
prove, and avoid--are identified in the literature. The lat-
ter two are dimensions of performance orientation. Our fo-
cus in this study is on learning and prove orientations.
Sujan et al.'s (1994) performance orientation measures
map closely on to the prove orientation.
Five items were drawn from Sujan et al. (1994) to mea-
sure learning orientation. The five-item scale has been
used in prior research by Kohli et al. (1998) and has been
shown to have good psychometric properties. For clarifi-
cation, a prefix "In my line of work" was added to one
learning orientation item, and a suffix "at (company)" was
added to another item. Items from both constructs were
measured using a 5-point scale anchored by strongly dis-
agree to strongly agree. Prove orientation was measured
using the scale developed by Sujan et al. (1994). One addi-
tional item was added to the six-item Sujan et al. scale.
Minor modifications were made to these items to suit the
study context (e.g., "district manager" instead of "supervi-
sor," "district office" instead of "company" "product sales
rep" instead of "salesperson"). The dispersion within a
unit on each of these variables was measured by the stan-
dard deviation of the scores on these variables.
Unit job satisfaction. Four of five items from Brown
and Peterson (1994) were used to measure a salesperson's
job satisfaction. One item (i.e., "How worthwhile the
salesperson considered the investment of time spent sell-
ing") was dropped because it was narrow for the context of
our study. While the content of the items is identical to
Brown and Peterson's, the anchors of the scale were
adapted for the study. Thus, whereas Brown and Peterson
used item-specific anchors, for example, extremely satis-
fied-not satisfied at all, extremely excitingmnot at all ex-
citing, we used a standard set of response categories
anchored by strongly disagree to strongly agree to mini-
mize the burden on the respondents. A unit's job satisfac-
tion score was determined by taking the mean of the job
246 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
satisfaction scores obtained from the respondents within
that unit.
Unit performance. Performance information was
sought from managers who assessed their unit's perfor-
mance on three items--percentage of quota achieved,
sales volume, and overall performance. These items are
the same measures used by the company's managers for
evaluating the performance of their salespeople and sales
units. A 7-point scale ranging from much worse to much
better (compared to an "average" sales unit of the com-
pany) was used for measuring unit performance.
Control measures. Past research suggests that the mean
levels of the independent variables included in the study
also affect job satisfaction and performance. To ensure a
conservative test of the hypotheses, we control for the ef-
fects of mean career stage of salespersons in each unit, unit
mean competence level, unit mean reward level, unit mean
learning orientation, and unit mean prove orientation. In
addition, since one may argue that the larger the unit, cet-
eris paribus, the higher the performance, we also control
for unit size when performance is the dependent variable.
Unidimensionality, Convergent
and Discriminant Validity
The independent variables are all computed dispersion
scores, and hence confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is
not relevant for these variables. However, the items from
the 'root' scales (e.g., learning orientation) were subjected
to CFA for scale refinement purposes. Two CFAs were
performed, each involving constructs that were most simi-
lar to each other. The first was on the career stage con-
structs--exploration, establishment, maintenance, and
disengagement--and the second was on the two goal ori-
entations-learning orientation and prove orientation.
The career stage CFA involved estimating a four-factor
model. Two items, one from the maintenance career stage
and one from the disengagement career stage, were elimi-
nated. The resulting model had a good fit, even though the
chi-square index was significant 0C271= 160.72, p < .10).
The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness-of-Fit Index
(GFI), and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) were 0.97, 0.95, and 0.054, respectively. In the
goal orientations' CFA, one item belonging to the learning
orientation scale was discarded because of its low loading.
The resulting two-factor model had an acceptable fit (~z42=
161.84, CFI = 0.90, GFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08).
Convergent validity is indicated if the path coefficients
from latent constructs to their corresponding manifest
indicators are statistically significant (i.e., t > 2.0). All
items loaded significantly on their corresponding latent
constructs. A pairwise comparison of the constructs indi-
cated that all latent-trait (i.e., r correlations were signifi-
cantly different from 1, suggesting discriminant validity
SUMMER2001
(Dillon and Goldstein 1984). The highest pairwise corre-
lation was between learning and prove orientations and
was .49.
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
AND RESULTS
Recall that the antecedent variables of the study are the
six types of dispersion within each sales unit, namely,
career stage dispersion, gender dispersion, competence
dispersion, reward dispersion, learning orientation disper-
sion, and prove orientation dispersion. As we are inter-
ested in the impact of these unit-level antecedents on sales-
persons in those units, we perform our hypothesis testing
at the unit level.
While we received responses from 77 percent of the
617 salespersons in the 105 sales units that responded, the
response rate varied across units. As our antecedent vari-
ables are unit-level dispersions, four of which are com-
puted based on responses from member salespersons, we
had to ensure that we had an adequate number of responses
from each sales unit to accurately measure the dispersion
constructs. For this reason, we dropped units with a
response rate of less than 50 percent, resulting in 83 sales
units, from which data were used for analysis at the unit
level. These units have an average group size of 5.82. We
compared the distributions of the antecedent variables in the
full sample with the study sample. The means and standard
deviations are virtually identical, and only two correlations
are different between the two samples. Thus, the study sam-
ple is representative of the full sample. (Interested readers
may obtain the correlation matrix based on the full sample
from the first author.)
The correlation matrix for the antecedent, control, and
dependent variables in the studied sample is reported in
Table 1.4
The correlation matrix reveals that 12 of the 15 possible
correlations among the antecedent variables are statisti-
cally nonsignificant (p > 0.10). We see a weak yet statisti-
cally significant correlation between career stage disper-
sion and prove orientation dispersion (iS = .21, p < . 10),
between gender dispersion and competence dispersion
(~ = .22, p < .05), and between learning orientation disper-
sion and prove orientation dispersion (15 = .33, p < .01).
These results are reassuring in at least two ways. First, they
offer empirical support for our premise that our antecedent
variables are largely distinct constructs. Second, the
results strongly suggest that multicollinearity among the
antecedent variables is unlikely to be an issue.
We hypothesized relationships between the above ante-
cedent variables and two unit-level dependent vari-
ables-job satisfaction and performance. As noted earlier,
we included the following control variables to ensure a
stringent test of the hypotheses: mean career stage of
,.,,,, I

4(.

| r'-
,-., t"-
I

I'

I' t'l"

~ . o ~ ~
I' I I I I" I

.x- *

I" I" I" 1 I' I I

q= I I"
@
t,,,,1
I" I'1'' I I

$
@ I I
@
@
I I I I I

0,,

L_
i ~l ~t

,x,

q
V

] ,x,
d
V

247
248 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
salespersons in each unit, unit mean competence level,
unit mean reward level, unit mean learning orientation,
unit mean prove orientation, and unit size (for the perfor-
mance model). Two multiple linear regression models
were set up as follows:
JOBSAT=o~I + t~t*CS_D+O~*GEN_D
+ ct3*COMP_D + O~4*REW_D
+ cq*LO_D + O~6*PO_D+ o.7*CS_M1
+ as*CS_M2 + o.9*COMP_M
+ ato*REW_M + o~H*LO_M
+ ~t12*PO_M+ error
PERFOR = ~o + ~I*CS_D + ~I2*GEN_D (2)
+ ~3*COMP_D+ ~4*REW_D
+ 135*LO_D+ [36*PO_D + [iT*CS_M1
+ ~s*CS_M2 + [39*COMP_M
+ ~Io*REW_M + I~H*LO_M
+ 1312*PO_M+ ~13*UNIT_SIZE+ error,
where the dependent variables are
JOBSAT = a unit's mean job satisfaction level and
PERFOR = the unit's performance level.
The antecedent variables are
CS_D = the unit's career stage dispersion,
GEND_D = the unit's gender dispersion,
COMP_D = the unit's competence dispersion,
REW_D = the unit's reward dispersion,
LO_D = the unit's learning orientation dispersion,
and
PO_D = the unit's prove orientation dispersion.
The control variables are
CS_M 1 = the unit's mean career stage (a dummy
variable that equals 1 if the mean is
establishment and 0 otherwise),
CS_M 2 = the unit's mean career stage (another
dummy variable that equals 1 if the
mean is maintenance and 0 otherwise),
COMP_M = the unit's mean competence level,
REW_M = the mean reward level within the unit,
LO_M = the mean level of learning orientation
in the unit,
PO_M = the mean level of prove orientation,
and
UNIT_SIZE = the number of salespersons in a unit.
Recall also that a unit's job satisfaction measure
(Model 1) is the mean of the job satisfaction scores ob-
tained from the respondents within that unit. As the num-
ber of respondents varies across units, the error term could
violate the assumption of homoscedasticity (Johnston and
DiNardo 1997:171). Therefore, akin to weighted least
squares (WLS) procedure, we use the number of respon-
SUMMER 2001
dents per unit as the weight variable to estimate the param-
eters of the satisfaction model. Such an issue does not arise
in the estimation of parameters of the performance model.
This is because the unit performance information was ob-
tained from the unit managers (one manager per unit).
We find that the two dependent variables have a weak
(1) but statistically significant correlation coefficient (15 = .30,
p < .05). The correlation coefficient between residuals
from the two models based on separate regressions is weak
and statistically nonsignificant (15 = .20, p > .05). Yet, to be
conservative in our estimation of the model parameters,
we used seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) adjusting
for heteroscedasticity in the satisfaction model.
The regression coefficients of the estimated regression
models are reported in Table 2. The table also contains
summary statistics for the two models.
As indicated in Table 2, the SUR system of models
with sales unit's job satisfaction (JOBSAT) and perfor-
mance (PERFOR) as the dependent variables is statisti-
cally significant (F value = 12.452, p < .001, adjusted R 2 =
65.2%, sample size = 77 units). Four of the six antecedent
variables---career stage dispersion, gender dispersion, com-
petence dispersion, and learning orientation dispersion--
have a statistically significant influence on job satisfaction
in the hypothesized direction, supporting Hypotheses 1, 3,
5, and 9 (see Table 2). All of the related regression coeffi-
cients are significant with p < .05 except that for gender
dispersion, which has a p value of .06. In the model with a
unit's performance (PERFOR) as the dependent variable,
three of the six predictors--gender dispersion, reward dis-
persion, and prove orientation dispersion--are significant
with p < .05 and in the posited direction. Thus, we find sup-
port for Hypotheses 4, 8, and 12.5
The results suggest the following. Only gender disper-
sion is significantly related to both dependent variables
investigated in the study. It is positively related to unit job
satisfaction and has a negative relationship with unit per-
formance. The other antecedents have a significant rela-
tionship either with unit satisfaction or performance but
not both. For example, while career stage dispersion and
learning orientation dispersion have a significant negative
relationship with unit job satisfaction, neither is a signifi-
cant predictor of unit performance. Competence disper-
sion has a significant, positive relationship with unit job
satisfaction but is unrelated to unit performance. On the
other hand, while reward dispersion has a positive rela-
tionship and prove orientation dispersion has a negative
relationship with unit performance, neither is related to
unit job satisfaction.
Overall, these findings suggest that the heterogeneity
within a sales unit has a reasonably strong influence on a
unit's satisfaction and performance levels. In all, 7 of our
12 hypotheses are supported by the data. The control
 Venkateshet al, / INFLUENCEOF HETEROGENEITY 249

TABLE 2
Influence of Within-Unit Dispersions on Unit Salespersons' Job Satisfaction and Performance
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients(N = 77)
Model 1: Dependent Variable Model 2: Dependent Variable
Variable Description Unit's Job Satisfaction (JOBSAT) Unit's Performance (PERFOR)
Antecedent variables
CS_D Unit's career stage dispersion -.334*** .063
GEN_D Unit's gender dispersion .283* -.870***
COMP_D Unit's competence dispersion .123"** -.056
REWD Unit's reward dispersion -.026 .495***
LO_D Unit's learning orientation dispersion -.402** .492
POD Unit's prove orientation dispersion .106 -1.532"**
Control Variables
CS_M1 Unit's mean careerstage (establishmentor otherwise) .621"** .440"
CS_M2 Unit's mean careerstage (maintenanceor otherwise) .671'** .335
COMP_.M Unit's mean competencelevel .040" .293"**
REWM Unit's mean rewardlevel .155"* .097
LO_M Unit's mean levelof learning orientation .241" .058
PO_M Unit's mean levelof proveorientation .150 .038
UNIT_SIZE Unit's size NA .084**

Model Summary (based on seemingly unrelated regressionadjustedfor heteroscedasticity)

F value 12.452 (p < .001)
SystemwideadjustedR2 65.2%
Adjusted R2 attributableto control variablesalone 49.2%
Adjusted R2 attributableto heterogeneityvariables 16.0%
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p< .01.

variables in our models seem to have a stronger influence DISCUSSION

on job satisfaction than on unit performance. In the model
involving job satisfaction, we find positive and significant
regression coefficients for five control variables, namely,
the two dummy variables that capture whether the mean
career stage is establishment or maintenance, the unit's
mean competence level, the mean reward level, and the
mean level of learning orientation. In the performance
model, mean career stage (establishment or otherwise),
mean competence, and unit size are significantly (and pos-
itively) related to unit performance. The results suggest
that the mean and dispersion levels of a variable (e.g.,
career stage) can have distinct and independent effects on a
dependent variable. These effects cannot be clubbed
together and must be interpreted on a ceteris paribus
basis3
To apportion the explained R 2 between the covariates
and the focal heterogeneity variables, we also ran SUR for
models involving the covariates and dependent variables
only. We find that the covariates alone yield an adjusted R 2
of 49.2% for the model system. It is very encouraging that
over and above the explanatory power of the covariates,
the antecedent variables explain 16 percent of the variance
in the dependent variables or, equivalently, 24.7 percent of
the variance explained by the full set of independent vari-
ables included in the model.
The purpose of the present study is to introduce and
explore the usefulness of the sales unit perspective in pro-
viding fresh insights into determinants of job satisfaction
and sales performance. Specifically, we argue that hetero-
geneity within a sales unit along several dimensions influ-
ences the sales unit's job satisfaction and performance. We
use data from a number of sales units in a single company
to test our thesis.
The sales unit perspective has implications for sales
managers at two distinct levels. First, the findings help a
manager better understand why salespersons feel and
behave a certain way. This is because the sales unit per-
spective urges the manager to consider the nature of the
unit to which the salesperson belongs rather than focus on
the salesperson only. Thus, for example, a salesperson
may be making good money but may still be unhappy
because he or she feels that the reward system does not dis-
criminate based on relative contributions. Second, the
sales unit perspective helps a sales manager think about
structuring the sales unit in a manner that is likely to lead to
desired outcomes. In particular, the study suggests impor-
tant considerations when making recruiting, transfer, and
compensation decisions as discussed below.
250 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Managerial Implications
The study's findings have straightforward implications
for managers. For example, our finding that salespeople in
heterogeneous or mixed-gender units have higher satisfac-
tion levels than those in single-gender units probably sug-
gests creating a gender-balanced sales unit if the objective
is to increase employee job satisfaction. In contrast, career
stage dispersion appears to reduce salespeople's satisfac-
tion. Presumably, career stage dispersion within a sales
unit leads to divergent attitudes and tends to diminish
intraunit communication. This finding suggests that sales
managers should institute specific mechanisms that
encourage salespeople belonging to units with divergent
career stages to interact frequently with fellow salespeople
within the same unit. Independent of their career stage,
senior and longtime salespeople are typically storehouses
of market knowledge and selling skills and can serve
important roles as mentors and coaches of junior salespeo-
ple. Fostering interaction between such veterans and
younger recruits may help reduce the negative effects of
career stage dispersion on satisfaction.
It also appears that narrow dispersion in learning orien-
tation enhances salespeople's satisfaction. This is perhaps
because salespeople in such units have similar attitudes
toward improving their skills and abilities, thereby leading
to more interactions and harmony. The implication for
managers is that they should institute mechanisms that
ramp up the learning orientation of individuals who are
low on this dimension lest the others become demoralized.
We find that sales unit performance is negatively
related to dispersions in gender and prove orientation but
positively related to reward dispersion. The finding on
gender dispersion makes gender diversity a tricky issue to
manage, especially because it is positively related to satis-
faction. We suggest that managers promote gender diver-
sity because of its positive impact on satisfaction. This can
be done through judicious recruitment, although such poli-
cies tend to take time to implement. To mitigate the nega-
tive effect of gender diversity on performance, it is impor-
tant that managers take additional actions to ensure that
performance is not hurt. Based on past research, one sug-
gestion is that managers rely on motivational mechanisms
(e.g., goal setting, providing feedback) to alleviate the
downside of gender diversity.
The observed positive relationship between reward dis-
persion and performance suggests that firms may gain by
having a compensation scheme that is not only more dis-
criminating across high, average, and low performers but
is also more transparent. The negative relationship
between prove orientation and performance suggests that
the frequent monitoring and impression management
activities by only a subset of salespersons in a unit may be
bothersome to their colleagues and bring down the entire
SUMMER 2001
unit's performance. It seems that this might be best han-
dled by transfers of salespeople to other units such that
prove orientation dispersion within a sales unit is not very
high.
Contributions to Theory
While our article is rooted in extant theories of social
psychology and sales force management, it extends cur-
rent thinking in these two areas in a significant manner. To
the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study that exam-
ines the effects of unit-level variables (dispersion) on the
satisfaction and performance of sales units. Furthermore,
the set of antecedent variables in this study (e.g., career
stage dispersion, reward dispersion, learning orientation
dispersion) has not been the focus of studies examining
group processes. In addition, while the impact of peers is
recognized in social psychology, an overwhelming num-
ber of these studies are in experimental settings involving
"artificial" groups and individuals as varied as small chil-
dren, undergraduates, and residents in hostel dormitories.
In contrast, ours is a field study involving salespeople who
have sustained associations with their peers.
Although researchers have recognized the importance
of organization climate, empirical research on the critical
role of peers is scarce. Moreover, the present study sug-
gests that well-known notions, such as career stages of
salespeople, gender, and rewards, perhaps may be of even
greater managerial import when viewed from the perspec-
tive of their dispersion within a group.
Research Limitations
and Directions
Our study has several limitations. These represent
opportunities for both theoretical and empirical work in
the area. Our focus has been on salespeople who work
independently in the field while maintaining social contact
with their colleagues. The emergence of sales teams in
which cooperation is a major element warrants close atten-
tion. In particular, it would be very useful to examine how
the group dynamics change if the selling organization is a
multifunctional collaborative team rather than composed
of independent salespersons who "compete" with other
independent salespersons.
Our goal in this article is to model and demonstrate that
the dispersion levels of particular variables are of concep-
tual and empirical significance beyond those of the mean
levels of these variables. Our empirical findings support
our premise in a number of instances. It is possible that in
addition to the main effects, the mean and dispersion levels
of a focal variable may interact with each other on the
dependent variables. This approach is likely to be interest-
ing and worthy of future research.

The relationships between the antecedent and depend-
ent variables in our study are probably mediated by other
variables. For example, the positive relationship between
gender diversity and satisfaction may be due to forces of
attraction and camaraderie in mixed-gender units. These
factors might be responsible for a lack of competitive
spirit, thereby leading to lower performance. Future
research into such potential mediating mechanisms is
likely to yield rich insights.
Our study is based on data from a single company.
While our unit-level analysis required us to focus on multi-
ple units within the same company to enhance internal
validity, it would be valuable to replicate (or refute) the
findings in other contexts (e.g., salary vs. commission,
prevalence of sales contests, closeness of supervision, and
so on), thus moving toward developing generalizable
findings.
As noted earlier, we used a subset of items for measur-
ing career stages of salespeople. If practical, it would be
instructive to use the complete scale in future studies to see
if similar finds are obtained. Finally, although the reward
scale used in the study has an alpha of .76, it does not fully
capture the domain of intangible rewards. Future studies
should use a more complete scale to measure tangible and
intangible rewards (see, e.g., the scale developed by Tyagi
1985).
In conclusion, the present study provides some evi-
dence of the effects of heterogeneity in sales units on the
satisfaction and performance of salespeople in those units.
We believe the unit-level perspective has the potential to
provide deeper insights than might be obtained by focus-
ing on the individual level alone. We hope some of the con-
ceptualization and arguments introduced in this study pro-
vide some bases for future investigations employing the
unit-level perspective.
Appendix
Scale Items
Career Stagesa (Drawn from Cron and Slocum 1986)
Exploration (a = .94)
1. Deciding what I really want to do for a living
2. Finding a line of work that really appeals to me
3. Finding opportunity to do the kind of work I really
like to do
4. Making sure of my current occupational choice
Establishment (a = .73)
5. Developing a reputation in my company
6. Becoming especially skillful in my work
7. Finding ways of making my competence known
8. Advancing to a higher position in my company
Venkatesh et al. / INFLUENCE OF HETEROGENEITY 251
Maintenance (ix = .72)
9. Holding my own against the competition of new sales
reps entering the fieldb
10. Attending meetings and seminars on new methods
11. Finding out about new opportunities as my field
changes
12. Getting refresher training
Disengagement (cx= .73)
13. Avoiding excess occupational pressures
14. Developing more hobbies to replace work interests
15. Doing the things I've always wanted to do but never
had the time because of work
16. Having a good life in retirementb
Competence Dispersion (Adapted from Kohli and Jaworski 1994)
Managers reported the extent to which their sales unit was similar
or dissimilar on the following items:
1. Knowledge about selling
2. Product knowledge
3. Overall ability to perform key tasks
4. Judgment of relevant business matters
Rewards b (new scale) (a = .76)
1. Prizes and awards from my companyr
2. Recognition from my sales manager
3. Salary + commissions
4. Overall compensation (including perks)
Learning Orientation a (Drawn from Sujan, Weitz, and Kumar
1994) (or = .76)
1. There really are not a lot of new things to learn about
selling at (my company),b (R)
2. In my line of work, it is worth spending a great deal of
time learning new approaches for dealing with cus-
tomers.
3. It is important for me to learn from each selling expe-
rience I have.
4. An important part ofbeing a good sales rep is continu-
ously improving your selling skills.
5. Learning how to be a better sales rep is of fundamentai
importance to me.
Prove Orientation a (Drawn from Sujan et al. 1994) (or= .74)
1. I feel very good when I know I have outperformed
other sales reps in my district office.
2. It is very important to me that my district manager
sees me as a productive sales rep.
3. I very much want fellow sales reps in my district of-
fice to consider me to be good at selling.
4. I evaluate myself using my district manager's criteria.
5. It is important for me to perform better than other reps
in my district office.
6. I always try to communicate my sales accomplish-
ments to my district manager.
7. I spend a lot of time thinking about how my perfor-
mance compares with that of other sales reps in my
district office.
252 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE
Job Satisfaction (based on Brown and Peterson 1994) ((x = .86)
1. I find my work exciting.
2. I would advise a friend to sell for my company.
3. I would recommend the company as a place to work.
4. Overall, I am satisfied with my job.
Performance (new scale)
Managers reported the extent to which their unit is much worse or
much better relative to other units in the organization on the fol-
lowing items:
1. Percentage of quota achieved
2. Sales volume
3. Overall performance
NOTE: Unless indicated otherwise, salespeople are the respondents. Ca-
reer stages were measured on scale ranging from 1 (not at all concerned)
to 5 (very concerned). Competence dispersion items were measured at
the unit level using a 5-point scale ranging from very dissimilar to very
similar. Rewards (at the salesperson level) and performance (at the unit
level) were measured using a scale ranging from 1 (much worse) to 7
(much better). Learning and prove orientations and job satisfaction were
measured using scales ranging from I (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). (R) indicates reverse-scored items.
a. Dispersions were computed for these measures using the procedure de-
scribed in the Measures section.
b. This item was eliminated during the scale purification process.
c. This item was deleted because of low item-to-total correlation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Steve Brown, Pradeep Chintagunta,
J a m e s Craft, A1 Silk, P a n d u T a d i k a m a l l a , L o i s Vargas, a n d
p a r t i c i p a n t s at t h e s y m p o s i a at t h e H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s
S c h o o l a n d t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a for t h e i r
h e l p f u l c o m m e n t s . T h e a u t h o r s are e s p e c i a l l y t h a n k f u l to
the J A M S e d i t o r a n d t h r e e a n o n y m o u s r e v i e w e r s for t h e i r
c o n s t r u c t i v e c o m m e n t s . R e s e a r c h s u p p o r t p r o v i d e d b y the
H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s S c h o o l is g r a t e f u l l y a c k n o w l e d g e d . A l l
t h r e e a u t h o r s c o n t r i b u t e d e q u a l l y to t h e article.
NOTES
1. Fortune 500 companies, including those mentioned above, tend to
have two types of sales forces---those that call on national or key ac-
counts and those that work with relatively smaller accounts. National-
account salespeople typically engage in team selling, while others do not
work in teams for the most part. The focus of this study is on the latter,
that is, salespeople who are engaged in individual selling from a branch
office rather than in team selling.
2. More important, we recognize that additional factors such as com-
petence and mean career stage in the sales unit are likely to affect sales
unit satisfaction and performance; we control for these factors in our
analysis discussed later. We advance Hypotheses 1 through 12 focusing
on heterogeneity on a ceteris paribus basis.
3. There were very few cases in which the highest score on a particu-
lar career stage scale was followed by a very close second score that was
two or more categories off. Specifically, this situation arose in 13 cases
out of 476 responses (2.73% of the total responses). In each of these in-
stances, we assigned the respondent to the career stage commensurate
SUMMER 2001
with his or her total sales experience. There was no difficulty breaking the
tie in this manner.
4. The studied sample consists of data from 77 sales units for which
we had at least a 50 percent response rate and for which we also had re-
sponses from the unit managers. The statistical information for the stud-
ied sample is similar to that for the full sample.
5. We adopt the conventional approach of using significance levels of
1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percent to test our hypotheses as opposed to
setting the significance level based on a desired power of the test because
we do not know what the alternative is (except that it is not equal to the
null value).
6. To see why, consider the analogy ofthe"wealth of nations." Of two
nations, the one with a greater wealth per capita is arguably happier, all
else the same. Yet, between two nations with the same wealth per capita,
the nation with greater disparity (i.e., dispersion) in wealth distribution
may be expected to be less happy. In other words, the influences of the
mean and dispersion should be interpreted separately.
REFERENCES
Ames, Carole and Jennifer Archer. 1988. "Achievement Goals in the
Classroom: Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Pro-
cesses." Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (September):
260-267.
Ancona, Deborah G. and David F. Caldwcll. 1988. "Beyond Task and
Maintenance: Defining External Functions in Groups." Group and
Organization Studies 13:468-494.
Aries, Elizabeth. 1976. "Interaction Patterns and Themes of Male, Fe-
male and Mixed Groups." Small GroupBehavior 7 (Fcbrnary): 7-18.
Bantel, Karen A. and Susan E. Jackson. 1989. "Top Management and In-
novations in Banking: Does the Composition of the Top Team Make a
Difference?"StrategicManagementJourna110 (Summer): 107-124.
Bcttencourt, B. Ann, Marilynn B. Brewer, Marian Rogers Croak, and
Norman Miller. 1992. "Cooperation and the Reduction of Intergroup
Bias: The Role of Reward Structure and Social Orientation." Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 28:301-319.
Bond, Charles F., Jr. 1982. "Social Facilitation: A Self-Presentational
View." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (6):
1042-1050.
Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson. 1994. "The Effect of Effort on
Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction." Journal of Marketing 58
(April): 70-80.
Butler, R. 1993. "Effects of Task and Ego-Achievement Goals on Infor-
mation-Seeking during Task Engagement." Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 65:18-31.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr., Ncil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker, Jr. 1983.
"Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction in the Salesforce:'
Journal of Marketing Research 13 (November): 323-332.
Colarelli, Stephen M. and Amy L. Boos. 1992. "Sociometric and Abil-
ity-Based Assignment to Work Groups: Some Implications for Per-
sonnel Selection." Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (2):
187-196.
Craig, Jane M. and Carolyn W. Sherif. 1986. "The Effectiveness of Men
and Women in Problem-Solving Groups as a Function of Group Gen-
der Composition." Sex Roles 14 (April): 453-466.
Cron, William L. 1984. "Industrial Salesperson Development: A Career
Stages Perspective." Journal of Marketing 48 (Fall): 41-52.
- - and John W. Slocum, Jr. 1986. "The Influence of Career Stages
on Salespeople's Job Attitudes, Work Perceptions and Performance."
Journal of Marketing Research 23 (May): 119-129.
, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Ronald E. Michaels. 1988. "The Influ-
ence of Career Stages on Components of Salesperson Motivation"
Journal of Marketing 52 (January): 78-92.
Deutsch, Morton. 1949. "A Theory of Competition and Cooperation."
Human Relations 2:129-152.
Dillon, William R. and Matthew Goldstein. 1984. MultivariateAnalysis:
Methods and Applications. New York: John Wiley.

Dweck, Carol S. and Ellen L. Leggett. 1988. "A Social-Cognitive Ap-
proach to Motivation and Personality." PsychologicalReview 95 (2):
256-273.
Elder, Glen H. 1975. "Age Differentiation and the Life Course." Annual
Review of Sociology 1 (1): 65-190.
Elliot, Andrew J. and Marcy A. Church. 1997. "A Hierarchical Model of
Approach and Avoidance Achievement Motivation?' Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 72 (1): 218-232.
- - and Judith M. Harackiewicz. 1996. "Approach and Avoidance
Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational Analy-
sis?' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (3): 461-462.
Ely, Robin J. 1994. "The Effects of Organizational Demographics and
Social Identity on Relationships Among Profession Women." Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly 39 (2): 203-238.
Farr, James L., David A. Hofmann, and Kathleen L. Ringenbach. 19939
"Goal Orientation and Action Control Theory: Implications for In-
dustrial and Organizational Psychology." In International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Eds. C. L. Cooper and I.
T. Robertson. New York: John Wiley, 139-232.
Festinger, Leon. 1954. "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes." Hu-
man Relations 7 (May): 117-140.
Fields, Dail L. and Terry C. Blum. 1997. "Employee Satisfaction in Work
Groups With Different Gender Composition9 Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior 18 (2): 181-196.
Hackman, Richard J. and Greg R. Oldham. 1980. WorkRedesign. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Harackiewicz, Judith M., Kenneth E. Barton, Suzanne M. Carter, Alan T.
Lehto, and Andrew J. Elliot. 1997. "Predictors and Consequences of
Achievement Goals in the College Classroom: Maintaining Interest
and Making the Grade." Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy 73 (6): 1284-1295.
Jackson, Susan E., Joan E Brett, Valerie I. Sessa, Dawn M. Cooper, Johan
A. Julin, and Karl Peyronnin. 1991. "Some Differences Make a Dif-
ference: Individual Dissimilarity and Group Heterogeneity as Corre-
lates of Recruitment, Promotions, and Turnover." Journal of Applied
Psychology 76 (5): 675-689.
Johnston, Jack and John DiNardo. 1997. Econometric Methods. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Kent, R. N. and J. E. McGrath. 1969. "Task and Group Characteristics as
Factors Influencing Group Performance." Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 5 (4): 429-440.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1994. "The Influence of
Coworker Feedback on Salespeople." Journal of Marketing 58 (Oc-
tober): 82-94.
, Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Goutam N. Challagalla. 1998.
"Learning and Performance Orientation of Salespeople: The Role of
Supervisors?' Journal of Marketing Research 35:263-274.
Lawler, Edward E. 1973. Motivation in WorkOrganizations. Monterrey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Leonard, Richard. 1990. "ESPOs Bring Participation Home?' Manage-
ment Review 79 (11): 45-49.
Leventhal, G. S. 1976. "The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Or-
ganizations" In Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, Vol. 9.
Ed. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 91-131.
McCann, Douglas C., Thomas M. Ostrom, and Linda K. Tyner. 1985.
"Person Perception in Heterogeneous Groups?' Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology 49 (December): 1449-1459.
McGrath, Joseph E. and David Brinberg. 1983. "External Validity and the
Research Process: A Comment on the Calder/Lynch Dialogue?' Jour-
nal of Consumer Research 10 (June): 115-124.
Milliken, Frances and Luis L. Martins. 1996. "Searching for Common
Threads: Understanding the Multiple Effects of Diversity in Organi-
zational Groups?'Academy of Management Journal 21 (2): 402-433.
Mitchell, Daniel J. B., David Lewin, and Edward E. Lawler III. 1990.
"Alternative Pay Systems, Firm Performance, and Productivity?' In
Payingfor Productivity:A Look at the Evidence. Ed. Alan S. Blinder.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 15-88.
Nunnally, Jura C. 1978. PsychometricTheory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Venkatesh et al. / INFLUENCE OF HETEROGENEITY 253
O'Reilly, Charles A., III, David F. Caldwell, and William P. Barnett.
1989. "Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover"
Administrative Science Quarterly 34 (1): 21-37.
Peterson, Mark F. 1983. "Co-Workers and Hospital Staff's Work Atti-
tudes: Individual Difference Moderators." Nursing Research 32 (2):
115-121.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1983. "Organizational Demography." In Research in Or-
ganizational Behavior, Vol. 5. Eds. L. L. Cummings and Barry M.
Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 299-357.
- - and Allison Davis-Blake. 1992. "Salary Dispersion, Location in
the Salary Distribution, and Turnover Among College Administra-
tors." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45 (4): 753-763.
and Nancy Langton. 1988. "Wage Inequality and the Organiza-
- -
tion of Work: The Case of Academic Departments?' Administrative
Science Quarterly 33:588-606.
- - and .1993. "The Effect of Wage Dispersion on Satisfac-
tion, Productivity, and Working CoUaboratively: Evidence From
College and University Faculty:' Administrative Science Quarterly
38 (3): 382-407.
Pierce, Charles A. 1998. "Factors Associated With Participating in a Ro-
mantic Relationship in a Work Environment?' Journal of Applied So-
cial Psychology 28 (18): 1712-1730.
Salancik, Gerald R. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. "A Social Information Pro-
cessing Approach to Job Attitudes and Task Design?'Administrative
Science Quarterly 23 (2): 224-253.
Sauers, Daniel A. and Ken Bass. 1990. "Sustaining the Positive Effects of
Goal Setting: The Positive Influence of Peer Competition." Akron
Business and Economic Review 21 (4): 30-40.
Schneider, Benjamin. 1983. "Interactional Psychology and Organiza-
tional Behavior" In Research in Organizational Behavior. Eds. L. L.
Cummings and B. M. Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1-131.
9 1987. "The People Make the Place?' Personnel Psychology
40:437-454.
Sujan, Harish, Barton Weitz, and Nirmalya Kumar. 1994. "Learning Ori-
entation, Working Smart, and Effective Selling?' Journal of Mar-
keting 58 (July): 39-52.
Super, Donald, Robin S. Zclkowitz, and Albert S. Thompson. 1981.
CcareerDevelopmentInventory:Adult Form I. New York: Teacher's
College, Columbia University.
Tesser, A. 1988. "Toward a Self Evaluation Maintenance Model of Social
Behavior." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21.
Ed. L. Berkowitz. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 181-227.
Tyagi, Pradeep K. 1985. "Organizational Climate, Inequities, and Attrac-
tiveness of Salesperson Rewards?' Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management 5 (2): 31-37.
VandeWalle, Don and Larry L. Cummings. 1997. "A Test oftbe Influence
of Goal Orientation on the Feedback Seeking Process?' Journal of
Applied Psychology 82 (3): 390-400.
Vroom, Victor H. and Bernd Pahl. 1971. "Relationship Between Age and
Risk Taking Among Managers." Journal of Applied Psychology 55
(5): 399-405.
Weinstein, Alan G. and Robert L. Holzbach. 1973. "Impact of Individual
Differences, Reward Distribution, and Task Structure on Productiv-
ity in a Simulated Work Environment." Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 58 (3): 296-301.
Wheeler, Ladd. 1991. "A Brief History of Social Comparison Theory." In
Social Comparison: Contemporary Theory and Research. Eds. Jerry
Suls and Thomas Ashby Wills. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
3-21.
Wiersema, Margarethe F. and Allan Bird. 1993. "Organizational Demog-
raphy in Japanese Firms: Group Heterogeneity, Individual Dissimi-
larity, and Top Management Team Turnover." Academy of
Management Journal 36 (October): 996-1025.
Wyer, Robert S. and Christine Malinowski. 1972. "Effects of Sex and
Achievement Level Upon Individualism and Competitiveness in So-
cial Interaction." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 8 (4):
303-314.
Zenger, Todd R. and Barbara S. Lawrence. 1989. "Organizational De-
mography: The Differential Effects of Age." Academy of Manage-
ment Journal 32 (2): 353-376.
254 JOURNALOF THE ACADEMYOF MARKETINGSCIENCE
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
R. Venkatesh is an assistant professor of business administration
at the University of Pittsburgh's Katz Graduate School of Busi-
ness. His articles on product bundling, cobranding and sales
force management have appeared or are forthcoming in the Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, Journal of Business, Journal of Mar-
keting, Journal of Marketing Research, and Marketing Science.
SUMMER 2001
Goutam Challagalla is an associate marketing professor at
Georgia Tech. He received his Ph.D. in marketing from the Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin, where he won the Outstanding Disser-
tation Award. He has published articles on sales management and
marketing theory in marketing and psychology journals.
Ajay K. Kohli is Isaac Stiles Hopkins professor of marketing at
Emory University's Goizueta Business School. During 2000-
2001, he is on leave from Emory and working at the Monitor
Company. He has published in several journals on market orien-
tation, sales management, and organizational buying behavior.