TRANSFORMING SELLING: WHY IT IS TIME TO THINK DIFFERENTLY ABOUT SALES

RESEARCH
Author(s): Andrea L. Dixon and John (Jeff) F. Tanner, Jr.
Source: The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management , Winter 2012, Vol. 32,
No. 1, Thirtieth Anniversary Special Issue: Creating the Future for Sales and Sales
Management Research (Winter 2012), pp. 9-13
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23483338

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23483338?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management

This content downloaded from

130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Andrea L. Dixon and John (Jeff) F. Tanner, Jr.
TRANSFORMING SELLING: WHY IT IS TIME TO
THINK DIFFERENTLY
The authors acknowledge the history of the ABOUT
Journal SALES RESEARCH
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, contributions
editors, and growth in university-based selling centers, indicators of the maturation of the sales field. The field,
is challenged by boundaries that limit understanding of important research questions; therefore, they propose tr
ing the current definition of selling to account for growth in knowledge, changes in the sales function, and im
technology on the sales process. The proposed definition of sales is the phenomenon of human-driven interaction
and within individuals!organizations in order to bring about economic exchange within a value-creation context. B
the perspective of the customer's value-creation process, the authors challenge scholars to consider the industry
in which sales is occurring as well as the language and metaphors used in selling and sales research.

Just over 30 years ago, scholars recognized the need for a jour- Today, the number of schools offering s
nal focused exclusively on the advancement of sales research; inquiring about belonging to the USCA co
hence, the Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management The birth and development of JPSSM prov
(JPSSM) was launched in 1980 under the leadership of Edwin setting for academicians to share their sch
Simpson and Marvin Jolson./PS5Af has thrived under a care- practitioners operating in increasingly com
fill succession of leadership, with JPSSM editors serving via contexts. The network of sales centers integrated
overlapping terms from the first JPSSM editor, Edwin Simp- work into the classroom, thereby shaping the n
son (1980—82), through Marvin Jolson (1981—84), Thomas of industry professionals. These two force
R. Wotruba (1984-87), Lawrence B. Chonko (1987-90), the integrative transfer of knowledge (Figu
Thomas N. Ingram (1990-93), Ronald E. Michaels (1993- The sales research field has matured in m
96), Alan Dubinsky( 1996-99), Jeffrey K.Sager( 1999-2002), the launch of JPSSM. And yet there are barr
Greg W. Marshall (2002-5), Kenneth R. Evans (2005-8), in sales research that limit the generalizability
James S. Boles (2008-11), and the present editor, Michael hinder the development of new theories, an
Ahearne (2011-). In JPSSM s history, the field has grown our understanding that are hidden from ge
from infancy (reporting descriptive data) to adulthood (with big questions still plague managers and re
research based on multiple methods, multiple samples, and spite of the progress made as the field matu
rich theoretical bases). research for even greater progress over the next 25 years, we
Five years after the launch of JPSSM, Baylor University propose a new definition of selling that can engender a
seized an opportunity to focus faculty on research and teach- expanded lexicon, perhaps a new set of metaphors, an
ing in the sales area, giving birth to the first sales center in frontier for fruitful exploration. We will first review the pres
the United States. Since that time, the number of sales centers ent definition of selling and discuss why that definition needs
has grown exponentially and the University Sales Center Alii- to be transformed,
ance (USCA) boasts 24 member or associate member schools.
TRANSFORMING THE DEFINITION
OF "SELLING"

Andrea L. Dixon (Ph.D., Indiana University), Frank M. and Floy wrl ., . . r . r . .

r.1TTM .. r . ,. , jit- - t~\* While principles of marketing texts are fairly consistent in
Smith Holloway Protessor in Marketing and the bxecutive Director J r ° B '
of the Keller Center for Research and the Center for Professional the definition of selling as an
Selling at Baylor University, Waco, TX, andrea_dixon@baylor. promotional approach between a b
edu.

John (Jeff) F. Tannerm, Jr. (Ph.D., University of Georgia), Associate

Dean for Faculty and Research, Professor of Marketing, Hankamer The authors thank Jule Gassenheimer and Aparna Sundar for their
School of Business, Baylor University, Waco, TX, jeff_tanner@ contributions to this paper. The authors are listed in alphabetical
baylor.edu. order and contributed equally to this paper.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXXII, no. 1 (win
© 2012 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights
ISSN 0883-3134 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134320102

This content downloaded from

130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
10 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 1
Integrative Transfer of Knowledge
Research
/ \
Industry Teaching
and Raymond 2010, p. 222), the definition in the field versus
that implicit in research actually varies greatly. For example,
texts in selling position the task as a multistep process from
preapproach planning to postsale follow-up. Sales situations
may vary in the length, intensity, or importance of any one
step, but the sales process is presented as if it were the same
immutable path. Practitioners, however, recognize that sales in
various settings may involve multiple pathways to success.
This current definition came under fire when a group of
sales scholars convened at the 2011 Sales Educators Academy
(SEA). The purpose of the SEA, which was produced by
Florida State University and hosted by Rollins College, was
to strengthen the connections between research and teaching
and to fuel the transfer of knowledge to the next generation of
sales teacher-scholars. During one of the sessions, participat
ing faculty grappled with the following issue: "What is the
most appropriate framework for teaching a personal selling
course in the future?" The group concurred that sales must be
viewed as a nonlinear phenomenon, contrary to the current
seven-step models. The group's analysis can be paraphrased
as "a process model does not reflect reality," "technology has
entirely negated the existing models," and "internal selling/
resources/alignment as a critical activity in the cocreation
process is missing." As the selling processes that we teach
are coming under fire, at the heart of this perfect storm is an
outdated, narrow definition of selling.
A broader definition of selling is needed to capture the tran
sition toward the multiperson, technology-enabled engage
ment phenomena of today. Simple products do not require a
salesperson be involved in the selling process. Consequently,
according to Rackham (2011), the selling field is splitting into
transactions mediated predominantly by technology (trans
actional encounters) and those encounters requiring personal
selling. Gone, too, is the linear process or step ideology of the
past 25 years. We believe that selling may be better defined as
the phenomenon of human-driven interaction between and within
individuals/organizations in order to bring about economic ex
change within a value-creation context. This broader definition
This content downloaded from
130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
allows for multiple parties and processes, yet is more specific in
that this definition recognizes that the objective is not simply
promotion (Rackham and DeVincentis 1999), but exchange.
The definition also signals that context matters.
Some might argue that the proposed definition suffers from
the same deficiencies of a broadened definition of marketing
(Kotler 2005), that is, that all human interaction is selling.
Others might counter that much of human interaction is ex
actly that. But this definition, focused on the task of economic
exchange within the context of human interaction, moves away
from the sales process focus that appears to be under transition
due to advances in technology and moves toward multiperson
and multipoint engagements between parties.
Communicating about a product or service was cen
tral to the promotion function of the previous definition.
Technology- or search-enabled customers today no longer rely
on salespeople for learning about products or services. In fair
ness, learning about anything today is no longer episodic, but
a continuous process (Rhoton 2011). Clearly, the traditional
definition and sales models are restricted by the focus on a
single approach or process where promotion of the product
sat at the core.
If there is only one model of selling, contextual factors seem
relatively unimportant. Sales scholars report on "industry"
as they describe their data setting for empirical work, but
they do not typically call out the industry in the description
of the sales environment. As a consequence, scholars do not
control for industry setting, thereby introducing noise into
the overall body of knowledge, which results in confounding
findings and findings for which the boundary of application
is limited but unknown. For example, using our own work
so as not to cast aspersions too far, one recent study reported
results from a sample of financial services representatives
(Poujol and Tanner 2010). Reviewers demanded that we take
great pains to describe the sales setting, not because there was
a question of generalizability limitations to a type of selling
but because there was some question as to whether it was retail
selling and therefore, whether this journal was appropriate.
This latter question, although a valid question in a general
sense, was the wrong question. The real question is: "When
are these findings generalizable—to all sales settings or to
transactional settings only, or only when involving financial
services representatives?"
To examine this idea of a "single sales model" further,
consider Rackham's (2011) proposal that sales scholars con
sider whether sales is a hunting process or a sorting process.
He provides anecdotal evidence that sales organizations are
no longer acquiring prospects (i.e., there is no prospecting
"step" in the sales model), but rather are focused on sorting
opportunities more appropriately. While there always was a
sorting task as part of the overall sales function, the question
of sales as a sorting function, per se, is more likely to be an
 Winter 2012 11

Figure 2
Transforming Our Perspective

outcome of the industry and/or product/service setting and What happens when sellers see themselves as integral
corporate strategy than a descriptor of every organization's contributors to their customers' VCP? They focus on their
selling function. customers' customers. They seek to become experts in their
As a consequence, the perspective of sales as an immutable, customers' industries and the opportunities for driv
singular process has led to a lack of accurately specifying the sources of value for their customers (Thull 2010). In
population under study. The result is noise in the research with this model, the sales and sales management proc
system that limits our ability to solve the big problems. We should be, and in fact are, derived from the indust
do not believe that a new schema of sales roles is needed (cf. text in which the sales phenomenon is occurring. T
Moncrief, Marshall, and Lassk 2006). Rather, a taxonomy not a single sales model. And although this idea
of value-creation settings that takes into account differences unpopular, we believe it is time that our definition
in the value-creation process (VCP) across industries is in reflect that reality,
order.
TRANSFORMING THE LANGUAGE
TRANSFORMING OUR PERSPECTIVE OF SELLING RESEARCH

As a field, sales researchers have always had close relationships What happens if
with practitioners. Whether the unit of study is the salesperson selling and sales res
or the sales manager, such close relationships are needed for military metaphor
many reasons, not least of which is access to data. Yet this contexts. Managem
relationship has led scholars not to focus on how the buyer's enced industry's a
organization creates value for its customers; rather, the selling only a process, t
function and our scholarly work to date has focused on be- The result was who
ing successful at the transaction, that is, making the sale (or the field of sales. I
failure to make the sale, as in Dixon, Spiro, and Jamil 2001). and control were a
Even when the sales organization takes the longer-term per- phor was applied
spective of a customer relationship, the customer's VCPs are we now operate
not integrated into the sales strategy. However, if we begin control may not
with the VCP and embed within the VCP the organization's Systems's chief exe
buying process, we begin with the customer's organization as that leading an or
the focus for the sales process. This perspective is illustrated in the conversatio
in Figure 2, where the VCP holds within the organization's 2009). Salespeople
purchasing process which, in turn, shapes the foundation for conversation that
the supplier's sales and sales management processes. companies and in

This content downloaded from

130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
12 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Since the product and problem conversations are ongoing In the context of this discussion, the architect begins to
within and between companies, products per se are absolutely help the customer map out a meaningful decision-making
commoditized. The salesperson no longer has the ability to process. What is important at this stage is the customers vision
control the conversation. And, in fact, the conversation is for the new building. The architect is called to use his or her
unlikely to be as directed as the command-and-control context expertise to allow the customer to fulfill that vision. Given
of years past. Salespeople and sales managers no longer control his or her knowledge of trends and industry developments,
the interactions, and the illusion of control has locked sales the architect can sometimes help shape the customer's vision,
management and sales researchers into paths of research that So, the customers process of discovery is shaped by inputs
no longer apply uniformly to the phenomenon under study. from the architect. The architect must have deep knowledge
We believe that the influence of military language (con- to help the customer see different possibilities. In the sales
quer the territory, execute the sale) must be replaced by new exchange (and it is an exchange), the salesperson does not
language and metaphors representing the new environment have a preconceived notion (which is Era 1 or Era 2 of selling;
in which sales occurs. Salespeople must engage, not execute. Wotruba 1991). Rather, the salesperson cocreates the outcome
Salespeople must collaborate, not conquer. Sales leaders must that fits best with the customer's vision, within the context of
move people, not manage them. In fact, given the sheer the customer's setting (geographic for the architect, industry
amount of personal analytics available to the salespeople today for the salesperson).
via corporate customer relationship management systems, we Interestingly, in the architect's world, several steps occur
argue that salespeople must be self-managed. Today's salesper- before one even begins to discuss price. The architect's gen
son does not need the sales manager to know how well or how eral positioning in the marketplace provides the initial price
poorly he or she is doing. Rather, coaching takes precedence cue. However, since the architect is engaged in a VCP, the
over communicating statistics. customer willingly walks through several stages before price
A metaphorical context that comes to mind is from the conversations come into play. We suggest that this architectural
broader design field (Martin 2009). Specifically, salespeople metaphor might provide a context for crafting our work in
today must see their role as the architect for change in their the sales area to better meet today's environment. See Table 1
customers' worlds. Salespeople add value when they can chai- for a preliminary view of how transforming the language of
lenge the existing paradigms and provide a better decision- selling might begin,
making process than the one used currently by a customer.
Two Fortune 100 companies, IBM and 3M, are engaging CONCLUSION
their salespeople with the "Challenger" sales profile (Dixon
and Adamson 2011). Challengers operate with a broader We believe that it is time to reconsider the way we approach
understanding of their customer's business and business in and research the sales process. As a start, we provide a new
general by focusing on creating value for their customers. definition of selling as the phenomenon of human-driven
They develop a strong point of view and help their customers interaction between and within individuals!organizations in
engage with that point of view. They are truly the architects order to bring about economic exchange within a value-creating
of change in their customer's world. context. Selling is not about promoting products. Selling is
Salespeople in the future need to be the architects of change not a singular, XX-step process. Selling must be driven by
to create mutual success. Like the design world's architectural the customer's VCP. Therefore, where the game of sales is
role, there is a general process but not an XX-step model. For played, or the industry setting, does matter. Our research
example, an architect helps the customer understand his or going forward needs to develop research findings that are
her usage of space as well as the contextual experiences and specific to certain value-creating contexts and to control for
challenges he or she might face in that space. In this role, the industry settings (e.g., making industry a control variable in
architect provides valuable solutions to overcoming spatial multi-industry samples).
challenges for better people/work flows and for more enjoy- Salespeople are value-creating, knowledge workers, much
able environments. In the sales arena, the sales representative like architects, not operators within a repetitive, linear process
who creates valuable solutions for customers will know how as workers are represented in Taylor's (1911) work. Today's
the customer's current financial picture maps onto the aver- salespeople operate within unique contexts of value-creating
age statistics for his or her industry. By knowing what a good exchanges with their customers. Sales scholars should help
cost of goods sold ratio is for the industry, the salesperson salespeople and sales leaders free themselves from the illusion
can help the customer understand the bottlenecks causing that they can and do control the customer, the salesperson,
his or her firm to underperform in this area. So, the architect and the sales process.
diagnoses the spacial challenge and the salesperson diagnoses We encourage our sales colleagues to consider how this
the business challenge. definition of sales and the language used to connect our

This content downloaded from

130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Winter 2012 13

Table I
Mapping the Metaphor of Architecture onto Sales

Architecture Sales Possible Research Question

Predesign Ongoing conversations with customers to

information about customers, their industries,
customer investments in problem areas (that your
products/services address)
Schematic Design Review general business needs plaguing t
the customer's company curve about their customers' industries? What types of
Identify possible ways in which your product(s)/ information do they actively search for or have push
service(s) might impact the customer's world to their desktops?
Design Development Propose general solutions that link to specific business What are the basics in XYZ industry that must be
outcomes (designed to gain additional feedback) included in a general solution so the right conversatio
continues between the salesperson and the customer?
Construction Documents Propose full solution How are resources marshaled presales in order to
propose an effective solution?
Bidding and Negotiation Prepare to reinforce your value proposition What is the nature of the value in a collaborative
relationship involving multiple layers of both
organizations and how does that influence the
negotiation process?
Construction/Contract Make sure your company delivers on its promise How can salespeople and customers in XYZ industry
Administration collaborate on developing the return on investment of
their joint work?
Supplemental Services Identify additional ways in which your company might What period
provide value for this customer representative "in the conversation" without creating
negative/nuisance impressions?

work to others is deserving of such transformation. We also Moncrief, William C., Ill, Greg W. Marshall, and Felic
encourage our colleagues to explore generalizability in sales Lassk (2006), "A Contemporary Taxonomy of Sales
research more carefully, rather than assuming context away. tions," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
1 (Winter), 55-65
Then, and only then, can we move beyond the boundaries
Poujol, F. Juliet, and John F. Tanner (2010), "The Impact of
that are limiting our progress.
Contests on Salesperson Customer Orientation," Jour
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 30, 1 (Winter
REFERENCES 33-36.
Rackham, Neil (2011), "Some Difficult Issues in Selling Today,"
Babbitt, Tripp (2009), "John Chambers (Cisco) Declares
Keynote speech delivered at the Sales Educators Academy,
'Command and Control Is Dead,'" April 14 (available at College, Winter Haven, FL, June 2.
Rollins
http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com/john-chambers-cisco
, and John DeVincentis (1999), Rethinking the Sales Force,
declares-command-and-control-is-dead/). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Dixon, Andrea L„ Rosann L. Spiro, and Maqbul Jamil Rhoton, Diana (2011), "The Future of Learning," MIT
(2001),
"Successful and Unsuccessful Sales Calls: Measuring Sales
World, April 29 (available at http://mitworld.mit.edu/
video/923/).
person Attributions and Behavioral Intentions," Journal of
Marketing, 65 (3), 64-78. Tanner, John F., and Mary Anne Raymond (2010), Principles
Dixon, Matthew, and Brent Adamson (2011), The Challenger
of Marketing: How Marketing Gets Done, Nyack, NY: Flat
Sale: Taking Control of the Customer Conversation, Knoxville,
World Knowledge.
TN: Portfolio Hardcover. Taylor, Frederick W. (1911), The Principles of Scientific Manage
Ko tier, Philip (2005), "The Role Played by the Broadening ment,
of the
New York: Harper & Brothers.
Marketing Movement in the History of Marketing,"Journal
Thull, Jeff (2010), Mastering the Complex Sale, Hoboken, NJ:
of Public Policy and Marketing, 24 (1), 114-116. John Wiley & Sons.
Martin, Roger L. (2009), The Design of Business: Why DesignThomas (1991), "The Evolution of Personal Selling,"
Wotruba,
Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston: Har of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11,3 (Sum
Journal
vard Business School Press. mer), 1-12.

This content downloaded from

130.160.124.4 on Tue, 15 Dec 2020 14:58:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms