This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:10

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41
Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

Research Note: An Exploratory Analysis of Salesperson

Perceptions of the Criteria Used in Performance Appraisals,
Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment
a b c
Charles E. Pettijohn , Linda S. Pettijohn & Albert J. Taylor
a
Charles E. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Professor of Marketing at Southwest
Missouri State University. His research has appeared in publications such as Marketing Education
Review, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Psychological Bulletin, Psychology and Marketing, Journal
of Marketing Management, and Human Resource Development Quarterly. He is past President of
the Marketing Management Association and is currently the co-editor of the Journal of Marketing
Management. Dr. Pettijohn's preferred subject areas include Sales, Sales Management, and Customer
Service.
b
Linda S. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Professor of Marketing at Southwest
Missouri State University. Her research has appeared in publications such as Real Estate Business,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Psychology
and Marketing, Journal of Customer Service in Marketing and Management, Journal of Services
Marketing, and others. Dr. Pettijohn is a co-founder of the Institute of Marketing: Retail and Sales at
Southwest Missouri State University.
c
Albert J. Taylor (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Professor of Marketing at Austin Peay State
University. His research has been published injournals such as Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Journal of Midwest Marketing, The Louisiana Economy,
and others. In addition to his teaching and research activities, Dr. Taylor is the former Head of the
Department of Management and Marketing at Austin Peay State University.
Published online: 24 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Charles E. Pettijohn, Linda S. Pettijohn & Albert J. Taylor (2000) Research Note: An Exploratory Analysis of
Salesperson Perceptions of the Criteria Used in Performance Appraisals, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment, Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20:2, 77-80
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2000.10754226

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or
warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed
by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly
in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Research Note: An Exploratory Analysis of Salesperson
Perceptions of the Criteria Used in Performance Appraisals,
Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment
Charles E. Pettijohn, Linda S. Pettijohn and Albert J. Taylor

In some sales organizations the performance appraisal is treated as a bureaucratic exercise required by some "higher-up"
executive. As such, sales managers may essentially conduct appraisals in an arbitrary and perfunctory manner. This behavior
could be the result of the manager's perception that conducting performance appraisals requires considerable amounts of time
and effort, which provides few rewards, but adds considerably to the manager's level of conflict and stress. The purpose of this
research is to examine the relationships existing between one aspect of performance appraisals, salesperson perceptions of
the appropriateness of the criteria used, and two other variables, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. A survey
of retail salespeople provided the data required to evaluate the relationship between satisfaction, commitment, and the
perceived appropriateness of the criteria used. The findings indicate that salesperson satisfaction levels are significantly
correlated with the level of the perceived inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria used. However, the findings also indicate
that the perceptions of the inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria are not significantly related to the salesperson's level
of organizational commitment. Based on these findings, recommendations are made regarding the salesperson's role in the
development of the performance appraisal process.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:10 08 October 2014

Introduction Given the positive returns obtained from performance ap-

In the sales arena, managers frequently attempt to change
salesperson input. Popular methods of increasing productive
input include commissions, contests, profit sharing, sales train-
ing, etc. One method that can be used to influence productiv-
ity is the performance appraisal, a portion of many firms'
standard operating procedures. Managers may conduct ap-
praisals primarily to affect employee input through the feed-
back process, or to justify some sort of human resource action
(termination, transfer, promotion, etc.) (Cocanougher and
lvancevich 1978). Jaworski and Kohli (1991) identify other
benefits that can be obtained from performance appraisals.
Among these benefits are increases in role clarity, perfor-
mance, andjob satisfaction.
Charles E. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Profes-
sor ofMarketing at Southwest Missouri State University. His research
has appeared in publications such as Marketing Education Review,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Psyclwlogical Bulletin, Psyclwlogy
and Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, and Human
Resource Development Quarterly. He is past President of the Market-
ing Management Association and is currently the co-editor of the
Journal of Marketing Management. Dr. Pettijohn's preferred subject
areas include Sales, Sales Management, and Customer Service.
Linda S. Pettijohn (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Professor
of Marketing at Southwest Missouri State University. Her research
has appeared in publications such as Real Estate Business, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, Psyclwlogy and Marketing, Journal ofCustomer Service in
Marketing and Management, Journal of Services Marketing, and
others. Dr. Pettijohn is a co-founder of the Institute of Marketing:
Retail and Sales at Southwest Missouri State University.
Albert J. Taylor (D.B.A., Louisiana Tech University) is Professor of
Marketing at Austin Peay State University. His research has been
published injournals such as Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Journal ofMidwest Marketing, The
Louisiana Economy, and others. In addition to his teaching and
research activities, Dr. Taylor is the former Head of the Department
of Management and Marketing at Austin Peay State University.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the editor,
Alan Dubinsky, for his insights and encouragement in the completion
of this article.
praisals, one could reasonably expect that organizations would
devote considerable resources to the appraisal process. Corre-
spondingly, it may be anticipated that managers try to make
certain that the dimensions of the appraisal process are known,
understood, and supported by the participants. Contrary to
expectations, research has indicated that performance ap-
praisals are often conducted on only an annual and perhaps
perfunctory basis. Morris et al. (1991) contend that most man-
agers fail to use the evaluation process to its fullest potential
in motivating employees.
One can only speculate about the rationale underlying the
limited attention provided to performance appraisals in many
firms, but perhaps managers have failed to appreciate the
potential benefits which may be obtained from their invest-
ments in the evaluation process. To illustrate, Thomas and
Bretz (1994) argue that evaluations are often perceived by
employees and supervisors with "fear and loathing." Two
possible explanations for the fear and loathing are the ab-
sence of a 'sense of ownership' and an absence of rewards for
properly completing the process. The purpose of this research
is to examine one aspect of performance appraisals, salesper-
son perceptions of the appraisal criteria used. Specifically,
the study will empirically examine the relationship between
salesperson perceptions of the "appropriateness" of the ap-
praisal criteria used and the resulting levels of salesperson
job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Review of the Literature
Considerable agreement exists regarding the importance of
the performance appraisal process. DeCarlo and Leigh (1996)
contend that managers' evaluations of their sales forces have
an impact on performance which is "clearly recognized." This
perception is reinforced by their conclusion that no other factor
influences work input more than performance evaluations. Rea-
sons underlying the relationship between performance apprais-
als and their positive impacts on sales performance may be
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
Volume XX, Number 2 (Spring 2000, Pages 77-80).
 78
attributed t.o the fact that providing feedback supplies informa-
tion t.o salespeople that helps identify portions of their jobs that
are most important, and then provides additional input per-
taining t.o the sales representatives' rated performance on these
dimensions (Jackson, Schlecter, and Wolfe 1995). Dubinsky et
al. (1993) argue that increases in role clarity can impact both
the effort/performance expectancy and performance/reward in-
strumentality estimates. Thus, by reducing ambiguity perfor-
mance appraisals may positively affect the resulting levels of
motivation exhibited by employees. In their clarifying role, per-
formance reviews are credited with reducing role ambiguity,
which in tum leads t.o higher levels of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment (Babakus et al. 1996).
Teas (1981) states that a critical managerial role is provid-
ing sales personnel with performance feedback. Teas' research
results indicate that salespeople who believe that they re-
ceive performance feedback have higher levels of satisfaction.
Correspondingly, research has shown that role ambiguity is
negatively related not only to job satisfaction, but also to
performance (Behrman and Perreault 1984; Brown and
Peterson 1994). Brown and Peterson (1993) state that uncer-
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:10 08 October 2014
tainty about aspects of the job inhibits the salesperson's abil-
ity t.o perform and has negative impacts on job satisfaction.
When managerial expectations are vague, research has re-
vealed that role ambiguity increases and job satisfaction de-
creases (Behrman, Bigoness, and Perreault 1981). Dubinsky
and Skinner (1984) discovered that both job satisfaction and
performance are negatively related t.o ambiguity. Based on
this finding, the authors concluded that "retail salespeople
seem t.o require information regarding their job performance."
The research question addressed in this study is based on
the premise that salespeople may acknowledge the use of
certain t.opics in the appraisal process, but feel that these
t.opics are not the ones most appropriate for their circum-
stances. For example, a salesperson may realize that his/her
appraisal is based on sales volume, but feel that completion of a
course dealing with product knowledge would be a better evalu-
ation t.opic, because completion of the course is subject t.o his/
her control and affects his/her ability t.o work effectively.
It has been suggested that t.o enhance satisfaction, managers
should consider expanding the evaluation criteria to include
those criteria which are important to the salesperson, perhaps
by creating a participatory performance appraisal system.
(Behrman, Bigoness, and Perreault 1981; Brown and Peterson
1994; Mowen et al. 1985; Thomas and Bretz 1994). In fact,
employee input into the process has been described as having
an impact on the perceived fairness of the evaluation (Latham
et al. 1993; Greenberg 1986). It has been stated that the opin-
ions of employees, as they pertain t.o the appraisal system, may
be a greater determinant of the system's effectiveness than the
validity or reliability of the system itself (Wanguri 1995). As
stated by Thomas and Bretz (1994) without a sense of owner-
ship, both managers and employees may view the process with
"fear and loathing." Thus, they contend that a major concern in
the evaluation process is an acceptance of the system by those
employees being evaluated. To this end, if salespeople believe
they are evaluated based upon inappropriate criteria, it would
follow that their commitment t.o and satisfaction with the orga-
nization supporting this particular evaluation system would be
correspondingly reduced. Thus, the research question is:
What is the impact on salesperson job satisfaction and
commitment when salespeople feel they are being evalu-
ated with criteria they perceive as inappropriate?
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Methodology
Fifty-four retailers agreed to participate in the study and
provide access t.o their salespeople (230 salespeople). Ques-
tionnaires were distributed t.o full-time members of each firm's
sales staff by the firm's managers, and individual return enve-
lopes were provided t.o protect each salesperson's anonymity.
Usable questionnaires were provided by 155 retail sales-
people, for a response rate of 67 percent. In the sample selec-
tion process, questionnaires were distributed to full-time sales-
people (thus, part-time and temporary salespeople were pur-
posely excluded from the research) to ensure that each sales-
person had more of a vested interest in the appraisal process.
Each salesperson was engaged in the sale of shopping goods
and performed the traditional selling tasks (i.e. approach,
presentation, close, etc.). The majority of the respondents
were female (65.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents had
been employed with the retailer for a period of greater than
three years (29.6%), 15.6 percent had been with the firm
between two and three years, 20.3 percent had been in their
sales positions with the firm between one and two years, and
34.3 percent had been employed for less than one year. Most
of the retail store/department sizes, measured in terms of the
number of sales personnel employed, were less than ten sales-
people (45%), 30 percent had between ten and twenty sales-
people in the store/department, and 25 percent had over twenty
salespeople in the store/department. Further, 76.8 percent of
the sample were compensated through a fixed (at least 75% of
compensation was fixed) compensation system, and 24.2 per-
cent were compensated with a variable (less than 75% fixed)
system. These sample characteristics are similar to those
found in prior retail studies occurring in a "shopping good"
environment (e.g., Hampton, Dubinsky, and Skinner 1986).
Criteria which were identified most frequently in Jackson,
Schlacter, and Wolfe's (1995) research provided an initial list
of evaluation criteria. This list was then further specified
through discussions with the retail sales managers to include
the following criteria: sales volume; number of orders; profit-
ability of sales; attainment of sales volume/quotas; appear-
ance and manner; product knowledge; communication skills;
attitude; and initiative/aggressiveness. Salespeople were asked
to rate the importance of each of the criteria in their evalua-
tion systems by using a seven-point Likert scale (7=most
important and l=least important). In addition, salespeople
provided ratings of the topics that they felt should be in-
cluded in the appraisals (7=most important and l=least im-
portant). A difference score was then calculated by comparing
the scores on the criteria identified as being included in the
salesperson's performance appraisal with the ratings provid-
ing on those topics which the salesperson believed should be
included in his/her performance appraisal. The differences in
scores were then totaled to provide a measure of the per-
ceived "appropriateness" of the evaluation criteria used.
The job satisfaction scale developed by Wood, Chonko, and
Hunt (1986) provided the estimate of the respondents' levels
of job satisfaction. This scale consists of 14 items scored with
a seven-point Likert scale. This scale has been used previ-
ously in a marketing context and has an established reliabil-
ity level, with an alpha coefficient of .89 for the scale (Wood,
Chonko, and Hunt 1986). Organizational commitment was
measured by using a four-item scale developed by Hunt,
Chonko, and Wood (1985). This scale has been used in other
contexts with respondents from the field of marketing and
 Spring2000
Table 1
Correlations with the Perceived Inappropriateness of the Evaluation Criteria
Dimension Evaluated
Performance:
Low (n=n)
High (n=78)
z-value
Length of Employment:
:s: 24 months (n=80)
> 24 months (n= 75)
z-value
* =p<.01
**=p<.05
• The correlations reported under satisfaction are zero-order correlations; the correlations under commitment are partial correlations controlling for
satisfaction.
has a demonstrated reliability, with an alpha coefficient of
.85. Calculated alpha coefficients for this study indicate that
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:10 08 October 2014
the scales are reliable, with a coefficient alpha of .77 for the
satisfaction scale and .82 for the commitment scale.
Results
Initially, correlation analyses revealed a significant nega-
tive relationship between job satisfaction and the perceived
inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria (-.32; p<.01). Ad-
ditionally, correlation analysis revealed an insignificant rela-
tionship between organizational commitment and the per-
ceived inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria (-.04;
p>.05). Because satisfaction has been found to influence com-
mitment (e.g., Babakus et al. 1996; Johnston et al. 1990), a
partial correlation was computed between perceived inappro-
priateness of evaluation criteria and organizational commit-
ment, controlling for satisfaction. When controlling for satisfac-
tion the partial correlation was -.09 and not significant (p >.05).
Certain variables could affect the described relationships
between satisfaction, commitment, and the amount of change
desired in the evaluation criteria. For example, the
salesperson's level of performance and length of employment
with the firm could mediate the relationship between satis-
faction, commitment and the amount of change desired in the
evaluation criteria. One could speculate that a high performer
may have higher levels of job satisfaction irrespective of the
amount of change desired in the criteria used in the evalua-
tion process. Similarly, a positive relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational tenure could be anticipated.
Based upon a recognition of the possible influences of these
factors, additional analyses were conducted.
First, the respondents were divided into separate groups.
One division of the sample consisted of median splits of the
sample based on levels of performance. This division resulted
in two groups, high performers and low performers. A second
division was based on the respondent's length of employment
with the firm. Again, the sample was divided into a median
split of two groups, with one group being composed of sales-
people with less than or equal to twenty-four months of em-
ployment with the firm and the other consisting of those with
greater than twenty-four months of employment. Second, cor-
relation coefficients were calculated to provide the relation-
ships between satisfaction and the perceived inappropriate-
79
Satisfaction" Commitment'
-.38 * -.04
-.2a- -.01
.67 .14
.37* -.11
.24- -.02
.42 .59
ness of the evaluation criteria. Third, partial correlation coef-
ficients were computed to assess the relationship between
commitment and the perceived inappropriateness of the evalu-
ation criteria, while controlling for satisfaction. Further, z-
tests were conducted to determine whether the differences in
the correlations between high and low performers and be-
tween salespeople with less than or equal to twenty-four
months of employment and those with greater than twenty-
four months of employment could be attributed to either their
performance levels or their tenure with the firm.
Table 1 indicates that the greater the perceived inappropri-
ateness of the evaluation criteria, the lower the level of
satisfaction. The table also indicates that the differences in
correlations between satisfaction and the perceived inappro-
priateness of the evaluative criteria are not significantly
(p>.05) affected by the salesperson's level of performance or
amount of experience. Thus, overall the results indicate that
satisfaction levels are significantly influenced by the percep-
tions of the inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria.
The table also indicates that commitment levels are not
significantly (p>.05) influenced by the salesperson's level of
performance or amount of experience. The findings indicate
that organizational commitment is not influenced by the per-
ceived inappropriateness of the evaluation criteria.
Conclusions
The findings of this research indicate that appraisals can
have a positive impact on job satisfaction when employees
believe that they are being evaluated by the ''proper" criteria.
This finding makes a strong case for the implementation of
either salesperson participation in the development of the
evaluation criteria used or for managers to communicate the
"logic" underlying their use of specific criteria in the evalua-
tion process. The first strategy may be preferred, given the
fact that allowing salesperson participation in the selection of
evaluative criteria would not only facilitate greater agree-
ment with the evaluation criteria, it could also reduce poten-
tial role ambiguity. This finding is consistent with previous
research which has examined bank tellers' satisfaction with
appraisals (not job satisfaction or organizational commitment).
This research found that satisfaction with the appraisal in-
creased with teller participation (Dobbins, Cardy, and Platz-
Vieno 1990). However, one should recognize that participation
 80
may require the devotion of considerable resources to the evalu-
ation development process, and there is no guarantee that the
eventual evaluation criteria selected will be appropriate given
an individual firm's goals and marketing strategies.
Based on this limitation, managers may find it preferable
to focus on "communication" of the evaluation criteria to their
salespeople. Such a strategy may be termed a "selling" strat-
egy as opposed to a "telling" strategy. However, the use of this
strategy does little to eliminate the problem that exists when
a salesperson's performance is evaluated with criteria that
are judged by the salesperson as inappropriate.
Limitations and Future Research
While the findings provide insight into the use of apprais-
als, certain limitations exist. First, the sample is based on
retail salespeople, where managers may have greater oppor-
tunities to evaluate their sales employees on a one-to-one
basis. Such opportunities may indicate that these managers
are less likely to be required to rely on impersonal evaluation
tools such as call reports, courses completed, or sales reports.
Downloaded by [Tufts University] at 07:10 08 October 2014
Therefore, the retail environment may be more conducive to
the conducting of employee appraisals because the manager
is in a better position to evaluate the employee's inputs and
outputs, without resorting to other evaluation tools. Second,
the measures used in the study may not represent all aspects
of the appraisal process. For example, informal coaching was
not discussed, yet coaching is a form of employee control and
appraisal.
In terms of future research, research pertaining to mana-
gerially controlled aspects of performance appraisals and their
relationship to various salesperson constructs (satisfaction,
commitment, performance, turnover, etc.) should be contin-
ued. This type of research should also assess the relation-
ships between aspects of the appraisal process and various
contingent outcomes by using different sample bases. Future
research may also examine the relationships discussed using
different scales and measurement techniques to further as-
sess the validity of these findings. Another potentially fruit-
ful area of investigation would entail an examination of the
congruency that exists between salesperson and sales man-
ager in terms of their perceptions of the appropriate appraisal
criteria. This congruency could then be used to evaluate the
relationships between criteria congruency, ambiguity, satis-
faction, commitment, and a myriad of other characteristics of
appraisal programs.
References
Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Mark Johnston and William C.
Moncrief (1996), "Examining the Role of Organizational Vari-
ables in the Salesperson Job Satisfaction Model," Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20 (Summer), 33-46.
Behrman, Douglas N. and William D. Perreault, Jr. (1984), "A Role
Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction of Industrial
Salespersons," Journal of Marketing, 48 (Fall), 9-21.
, and William J. Bigoness (1981),
"Sources of Job Related Ambiguity and Their Consequences Upon
Salespersons' Job Satisfaction and Performance," Management
&ience, 27 (November), 1246-1260.
Brown, Steven P. and Robert A. Peterson (1994), "The Effect of Effort
on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Market-
ing, 58 (April), 70-80.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
and (1993), "Antecedents and Consequencet1
of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis and Asseument
of Causal Effects," Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (Febru-
ary), 63-77.
Cocanougher, Benton A and John M. Ivancevich (1978), "'Bars' Per-
formance Rating for Sales Force Personnel," Journal of Market-
ing, 42 (July), 87-95.
DeCarlo, Thomas E. and Thomas W. Leigh (1996), "Impact of Sales-
person Attraction on Sales Managers' Attributions and Feed-
back," Journal of Marketing, 60 (April), 47-66.
Dobbins, Gregory H., Robert L. Cardy and Stephanie J. Platz-Vieno
(1990), "A Contingency Approach to Appraisal Satisfaction: An
Initial Investigation of the Joint Effects of Organizational Vari-
ables and Appraisal Characteristics," Journal of Management,
16 (September), 619-632.
Dubinsky, Alan J., Marvin A. Jolson, Ronald Michaels, Masaaki
Kotabe and Chae Un Lim (1993), "Perceptions of Motivational
Components: Salesmen and Saleswomen Revisited," Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13 (Fall), 25-37.
and Stephen J. Skinner (1984), "The Impact of Job
Characteristics on Retail Salespeople's Reactions to Their Jobs,"
Journal of Retailing, 60 (Summer), 35-62.
Greenberg, Jerald (1986), "Determinants of Perceived Fairneu of
Performance Evaluations," Journal of Applied Psychology, 71
(May), 340-342.
Hampton, Ron, Alan J. Dubinsky and Steven J. Skinner (1996), "A
Model of Sales Supervisor Leadership Input and Retail
Salespeople's Job-Related Outcomes," Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 14 (Fall), 33-42.
Hunt, Shelby D., Lawrence B. Chonko and Van R. Wood (1985),
"Organizational Commitment and Marketing," Journal of Mar-
keting, 49 (Winter), 112-126.
Jackson, Donald W. Jr., John L. Schlacter and William G. Wolfe
(1995), "Examining the Bases Utilized for Evaluating
Salespeople's Performance," Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management ,15 (Fall), 57-65.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K Kohli (1991), "Supervisory Feedback:
Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeople's Performance
and Satisfaction," Journal ofMarketing Research, 28 (May), 190-201.
Johnston, Mark W., A. Parasuraman, Charles M. Futrell and Will-
iam C. Black (1990), "A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact
of Selected Organizational Influences on Salespeople's Organi-
zational Commitment During Early Employment," Journal of
Marketing Research, 27 (August), 323-334.
Latham, Gary P., Daniel Skarlicki, Diane Irvine and Jacob P. Siegel
(1993), "Chapter 3," from John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., Vol. 8,
edited by C.L. Cooper and J. T. Robertson, pp. 87-133.
Morris, Michael H., Duane L. Davis, Jeffrey W. Allen, Ramon A
Avila and Joseph Chapman (1991), "Assessing the Relation-
ships Among Performance Measures, Managerial Practices, and
Satisfaction When Evaluating the Salesforce: A Replication and
Extension," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
11 (Summer), 25-35.
Mowen, John C., Janet E. Keith, Stephen W. Brown and Donald W.
Jackson, Jr. (1985), "Utilizing Effort and Task Difficulty Infor-
mation in Evaluating Salespeople," Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 22 (May), 185-191.
Teas, R. Kenneth (1981), "A Test of a Model of Department Store
Salespeople's Job Satisfaction," Journal ofRetailing, 57 (Spring),
3-25.
Thomas, Steven L. and Robert D. Bretz, Jr. (1994), "Research and
Practice in Performance Appraisal: Evaluating Performance in
America's Largest Companies," SAM Advanced Management
Journal, (Spring), 28-37.
Wanguri, Deloris McGee (1995), "A Review, an Integration, and a
Critique of Cross-Disciplinary Research on Performance Apprais-
als, Evaluations, and Feedback: 1980-1990," The Journal of
Business Communication, 32 (July), 267-293.
Wood, Van R., Lawrence B. Chonko and Shelby Hunt (1986), "Social
Responsibility and Personal Success: Are They Incompatible?"
Journal of Business Research, 14 (June), 193-212.