Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Motivating industrial salesforce with sales control systems: An

interactive perspective
C. Fred Miao a,⁎, Kenneth R. Evans b, 1
a
362 New Snell Hall, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5765, United States
b
Michael F. Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019-4007, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research examines the interactive effects on industrial salespeople's intrinsic and extrinsic (I/E) motivation
Received 5 January 2012 of outcome control, activity control, and capability control above and beyond their main effects. I/E motivation
Accepted 15 April 2013 are disaggregated into their cognitive and affective dimensions. Moderated regressions using a sample of indus-
Available online 10 May 2013
trial salespeople find that (1) outcome control and capability control have positive interactive effects on task en-
joyment and recognition seeking, (2) outcome control and activity control have a positive interactive effect on
Keywords:
Sales control interactive effects
compensation seeking but a negative interactive effect on task enjoyment, and (3) activity control and capability
Intrinsic motivation control have a negative interactive effect on recognition seeking. Moreover, we find that compensation seeking
Extrinsic motivation has a stronger positive effect on sales performance when salespeople deal with more new customers whereas
Sales performance the opposite is true for challenge seeking; compensation seeking appears to elevate job satisfaction only when
Job satisfaction there is a lower percentage of new customers but the positive effect of recognition seeking on job satisfaction
is enhanced when salespeople handle a higher number of new accounts. These findings offer important theoret-
ical and managerial implications by providing compelling evidence that sales control interactive effects should be
considered when studying relationships among sales control systems, salesperson motivation, and job outcomes.
© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
As business-to-business firms are focusing on building long-
term relationships with their customers, their salesforce–the key
boundary spanner between the firm and its business customers–is
playing an increasingly important role in relationship marketing
(Morgan & Hunt, 1994), the successful launch of new products
(Ahearne, Rapp, Hughes, & Jindal, 2010), and the cross-functional
product development processes (Joshi, 2010). In fact, this service-
centric relational exchange context calls for an embedded salesforce
that “integrates on a regular basis with both its own organizational
subunits as well as the customers' subunits for the purpose of creating
customized products and services for its customers” (Bradford et al.,
2010, p. 241). None of these initiatives would be accomplished success-
fully, however, if the salesforce were not adequately motivated which
has been noted as the key driver of desirable salesforce behaviors and
sales performance (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985; Spiro &
Weitz, 1990; Weitz, Sujan, & Sujan, 1986). Despite the importance
of salesperson motivation in the ever increasingly challenging sales envi-
ronment, concerns with salesforce motivation are repeatedly cited as a
key issue managers have to deal with when directing their salespeople
(Brown, Evans, Mantrala, & Challagalla, 2005; Miao, Evans, & Zou, 2007;
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 315 268 3879; fax: +1 315 268 2301.
E-mail addresses: fmiao@clarkson.edu (C.F. Miao), evansk@ou.edu (K.R. Evans).
1
Tel.: +1 405 325 0100; fax: +1 405 325 3421.
Smith, Jones, & Blair, 2000). Therefore, sales organizations can benefit
from a better understanding of what and how managerial actions may
have a positive (or negative) influence on salesforce motivation.
One of the widely studied managerial means to shaping and
influencing salesperson motivation is the sales control systems
(Anderson & Oliver, 1987). Following the seminal work of Anderson
and Oliver (1987), most empirical studies have focused on the main
effects of behavior versus outcome control. In general it has been found
that behavior control is more strongly related to intrinsic motivation,
whereas outcome control is more closely associated with extrinsic moti-
vation (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993; Oliver & Anderson,
1994). However, an important limitation is that the effects on salesperson
motivation of sales control systems have been studied in isolation from
one another, which may lead to questionable or even misleading conclu-
sions due to sales control interactive effects (Wang, Dou, & Zhou, 2012).
Therefore, more research attention to effects on salesperson motivation
of hybrid sales control systems is warranted, especially in the new selling
environment (Brown et al., 2005).
Although some researchers have started exploring effects of hybrid
sales control systems (Cravens, Lassk, Low, Marshall, & Moncrief, 2004;
Jaworski, Stathakopoulos, & Krishnan, 1993; Onyemah & Anderson,
2009), notable research gaps remain. For example, both Cravens et al.
(2004) and Jaworski et al. (1993) operationalized behavior control and
outcome control as categorical variables (high vs. low), which may not
adequately account for a variety of complex hybrid control combinations.
Therefore, behavior and outcome control should be viewed as continuous

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.04.007
1234 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242

variables when studying sales control interactions (Wang et al.,
2012). In this study we advance our understanding of the hybrid
sales control strategies in three important ways. First, we treat
control systems as continuous variables which would allow us to
test for a range of possible interaction effects on salesperson moti-
vation. Second, prior studies yielded inconsistent findings with
respect to the effects of hybrid sales control strategies on salesperson
performance (Cravens et al., 2004; Jaworski et al., 1993; Onyemah &
Anderson, 2009). Because these studies linked sales control combina-
tions directly to sales performance, the mechanisms through which
hybrid controls operate remain in a black box. Therefore, investigating
intrinsic and extrinsic (I/E) motivation as mediating variables can
potentially explain observed patterns of results across studies. A point
of departure from previous studies is that we disaggregate I/E motiva-
tion into their cognitive and affective dimensions because social
psychology (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994) and recent sales
research (Miao et al., 2007) have demonstrated that they have distinct
antecedents and consequences. Third, most prior studies of hybrid
control strategies do not distinguish between activity control and capa-
bility control. Given that activity control and capability control are two
distinct dimensions of behavior control which may have differential and
even opposite psychological and behavioral consequences (Challagalla
& Shervani, 1996; Miao et al., 2007), they should be treated as separate
constructs. Outcome–activity control combination and outcome–
capability control combination, for example, may have opposite interac-
tive effects on task enjoyment (i.e., an affective dimension of intrinsic
motivation). Outcome–activity control combination induces effort attri-
bution, which enhances outcome performance expectancy by fulfilling
externally regulated activities (e.g., call rate). Therefore, the loss of
autonomy due to external locus of control perceived in outcome–activity
control combination may dampen task enjoyment. In contrast, outcome–
capability control combination gives rise to strategy/ability attribution,
which subsequently redirects salespeople's attention to improving selling
abilities/skills for higher performance expectancy. Because capability
control enhances perceived competence and outcome control renders a
high degree of autonomy, outcome–capability control combination may
enhance task enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Drawing on Attribution Theory, Expectancy Theory, and Cognitive
Evaluation Theory, we advance and empirically test the theoretical
model depicted in Fig. 1. Moderated regressions using a sample of
industrial salespeople provide substantive support for the premise
that sales control systems have, above and beyond their main ef-
fects, differing interactive effects on I/E motivation, which subse-
quently affect sales performance and job satisfaction. Moreover,
we find that the strength of effects on job outcomes of I/E motivation
depends on the percentage of new accounts in the salesperson's custom-
er portfolio. Taken together, these findings offer important theoretical
and managerial implications by providing compelling evidence that
sales control interactive effects should be considered when studying
relationships among sales control systems, salesperson motivation, and
job outcomes.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. After a review
of relevant literature, we develop our hypotheses. We then describe
our research method, data analysis procedure and report hypotheses
testing results, followed by a discussion of research findings and
managerial implications. The paper concludes with its limitations
and future research directions.
2. Background literature
2.1. Sales control systems
Sales control systems are the formalized policies, rules, and pro-
cedures employed by sales organizations to influence and direct
salespeople's motivation and behaviors for desired sales outcomes
(Anderson & Oliver, 1987). In their seminal work, Anderson and
Oliver identified two types of formal sales control styles: behavior
and outcome control. Behavior control requires active management
involvement in directing, training, evaluating and rewarding sales-
people according to their inputs in the selling process (e.g., number
of new customers visited) rather than simply focusing on immediate
sales output (e.g., sales quota). In contrast, outcome control uses
incentives (e.g., commission) to reward salespeople on the basis of
their sales outcome (e.g., sales volume) with minimal management
involvement in the selling process. Behavior control can be further
disaggregated into activity control and capability control (Challagalla
& Shervani, 1996). Activity control requires salespeople to perform a
prescribed combination of selling activities deemed important for
achieving desirable levels of performance. For example, under activity
control salespeople may be required to call a pre-determined number

Percentage of
Sales Control Interactions New customers

Salesperson Motivation Salesperson Outcomes

Outcome Control x
Capability Control

Intrinsic Motivation Sales

Challenge seeking Performance
Task enjoyment
Outcome Control x
Activity Control
Extrinsic Motivation
Compensation seeking Job Satisfaction
Recognition seeking

Activity Control x
Capability Control
Covariates
Age
Gender
Education level
Job tenure
Activity control
Capability control
Outcome control

Fig. 1. Sales control interactive effects on salesperson's I/E motivation.

 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242
of new accounts. Sales managers closely monitor salespeople and
reward them on the basis of the performance of these required ac-
tivities. In contrast, capability control does not pre-specify a set of
required activities. Instead, capability control sets individualized
goals for the level of skills and abilities salespeople must possess.
For example, the sales manager might instruct salespeople how to
vary selling styles depending on the customer's characteristics.
Managers monitor those skills and abilities, coach salespeople if
necessary, and reward them on the basis of their demonstrated
levels of skills and abilities.
While the majority of empirical studies on sales control systems
after Anderson and Oliver (1987) have focused on the main effects
of behavior versus outcome control, researchers have also illustrated
the interactive nature of sales control systems. For example, Wang et
al. (2012) found that behavior control and outcome control can
interact to affect salesperson's customer-directed sales behaviors.
With respect to salesperson motivation, Oliver and Anderson (1995)
found that a hybrid control strategy, compared to straight outcome or
behavior control, is more effective in enhancing sales reps' intrinsic
motivation. More recently, Mallin and Pullins (2009) also reported
differential sales control interactive effects on salesperson's intrin-
sic motivation. In a same vein, Kuster and Canales (2011) suggest
that behavior–outcome hybrid control can make salespeople more
effective via their enhanced motivation. However, none of these
studies integrated both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well
as their potential mediating role in the hybrid sales control context.
Therefore, the extent to which activity control, capability control, and
outcome control may have complementary or detracting interactive
effects with one another on salesperson's I/E motivation dimensions is
not clear.
2.2. I/E motivation
Within the sales control literature salesperson motivation has
been studied in terms of I/E motivation due to their associations
with behavior and outcome control. Whereas extrinsic motivation
reflects the extent to which salespeople approach work as a means
for obtaining external rewards such as money and recognition,
intrinsically motivated salespeople find their sales job inherently
rewarding and enjoyable (Amabile et al., 1994; Weitz et al., 1986).
In general, it has been found that behavior control is more strongly
related to intrinsic motivation and outcome control more closely
associated with extrinsic motivation (Cravens et al., 1993; Oliver &
Anderson, 1994).
One limitation of salesperson motivation research in the sales
control literature is the global nature of I/E motivation. Research in
social psychology demonstrates that the domain of I/E motivation
includes distinct cognitive and affective dimensions (Amabile et al.,
1994). Specifically, intrinsic motivation has been demonstrated to
include challenge seeking (cognitive) and task enjoyment (affective)
while extrinsic motivation is composed of compensation seeking
(cognitive) and recognition seeking (affective). Recent evidence in
sales literature also demonstrates the construct validity of these
cognitive and affective dimensions of salesperson motivation (Miao
& Evans, 2007). Therefore, to better understand the mediating role
of I/E motivation in the hybrid sales control context, disaggregating
I/E motivation into their cognitive and affective dimensions is
warranted.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Sales control interactive effects on challenge seeking
To understand the interactive effects of sales control systems on
I/E motivation, we draw on attribution theory, expectancy theory,
and cognitive evaluation theory due to the underlying linkages of
1235
performance feedback–attribution–expectancy (DeCarlo, Teas, &
McElroy, 1997; Teas & McElroy, 1986) within the sales control con-
text. The inferred causal attribution and subsequent performance
expectancy may, in turn, influence salespeople's cognitive evaluation
of their I/E motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Attribution theory (Kelley,
1967) posits that people tend to spontaneously make causal infer-
ences about events around them, especially those events that bear
important consequences to them. To the extent sales control systems
are designed to provide feedback on certain dimensions of perfor-
mance considered important by the sales organization, such feedback
should induce salespeople to make causal attributions of their perfor-
mance (Dixon, Spiro, & Jamil, 2001). Empirical attribution research in
sales has suggested three internal causal ascriptions–effort, strategy,
and ability–that can be directly affected by sales control systems
(Dixon et al., 2001; Fang, Evan, & Landry; 2005). In achieving out-
come goals, salespeople will seek, process, and integrate diverse
sources of task-related information in order to regulate their courses
of action (Carver & Scheier, 1982; Klein, 1989). Capability control sug-
gests to salespeople that it is not the overall amount of effort per se,
but rather one's selling skills and abilities (e.g., adaptive selling)
that effectively drive sales performance. For example, capability feed-
back may inform the salesperson that some new accounts were not
successfully converted not because the salesperson spent too little
time with the customer but due to a mismatch of the salesperson's
selling approach (e.g., relationship marketing) and the customer's
preferences (e.g., transaction-oriented as opposed to a long-term
relationship). As such diagnostic feedback induces strategy/ability
causal inferences, expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) suggests that
the salesperson will subsequently recognize the importance (valence)
and effectiveness of appropriate selling approaches in attaining sales
outcomes (expectancy) and rewards (instrumentality). Because capa-
bility control enhances salespeople's perceived competence during
customer interactions, salespeople will be more likely to take on
more challenging tasks when achieving sales outcome goals (Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). When outcome control is employed
concurrently with activity control, salespeople may attribute sales
outcomes to effort expended in fulfilling required activities. While
activity feedback emphasizes the extent to which salespeople have
followed through required activities, such feedback typically does
not provide explanations as to how improvement can be made
(Mallin & Pullins, 2009). For example, activity control may require
the salesperson to deliver a given number of presentations to new
customers every month but it does not necessarily provide insight as
to why some customers declined the salesperson's visit. As a result,
the salesperson may simply try more new customers as a remedy
(Dixon, Spiro, & Forbes, 2003). Therefore, when outcome control is
combined with activity control, salespeople may attribute sales out-
comes to effort (or a lack of it) expended in fulfilling these required
selling activities. This causal attribution may subsequently highlight
the perceived importance (valence) and effectiveness (expectancy)
of performing required selling activities in attaining outcome rewards
(instrumentality). That is, to enhance performance expectancy, sales-
people will likely increase the persistence (e.g., working more hours)
and intensity (e.g., higher call rate) in performing required activity
tasks. Because under activity control salespeople will have little
motivation and/or ability to take on more challenging tasks such as
adaptive sales procedures (Ahearne et al., 2010), we do not expect
activity control to have an interactive effect with outcome control on
challenge seeking. The disaggregation of the global behavior control
construct allows us to also consider the interactive effect of activity
and capability control. Although capability control may motivate
salespeople to take on more challenging tasks due to enhanced com-
petence, activity control may contradict capability control. Activity
control suggests that performance can be improved by expending
higher levels of effort in carrying out required routine activities rather
than improving one's selling skills per se, thereby mitigating the
1236 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242
positive effect of capability control on challenge seeking. The follow-
ing hypotheses are advanced:
H1a. The positive effect of outcome control on challenge seeking is mod-
erated by capability control, such that the effect is stronger at higher levels
of capability control.
H1b. The positive effect of capability control on challenge seeking is
moderated by activity control, such that the effect is weaker at higher
levels of activity control.
3.2. Sales control interactive effects on task enjoyment
Outcome control and capability control are expected to have a
positive interactive effect on task enjoyment. Because capability
control enhances salespeople's perceived competence and strengthens
the bond between salespeople and their manager while outcome
control renders salespeople autonomy in applying varying selling
approaches during customer interactions, salespeople will likely
find their work more enjoyable (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci,
2000). In contrast, we anticipate outcome control to have a nega-
tive interactive effect with activity control on task enjoyment be-
cause fulfilling required routine activities significantly restricts
salespeople's flexibility during the selling process, thereby leading
to loss of autonomy and lower levels of task enjoyment (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). By the same token, activity control may mitigate the
positive effect of capability control on task enjoyment as it interferes
with salespeople's ability to apply appropriate selling strategies
across sales encounters (Ahearne et al., 2010). We hypothesize:
H2a. The positive effect of outcome control on task enjoyment is moder-
ated by capability control, such that the effect is stronger at higher levels
of capability control.
H2b. The positive effect of outcome control on task enjoyment is moder-
ated by activity control, such that the effect is weaker at higher levels of
activity control.
H2c. The positive effect of capability control on task enjoyment is
moderated by activity control, such that the effect is weaker at higher
levels of activity control.
3.3. Sales control interactive effects on compensation seeking
Outcome control and capability control are expected to have a
positive interactive effect on compensation seeking. Given that capa-
bility assessment is abstract and subjective in nature (Challagalla &
Shervani, 1996), salespeople may seek external validation for the
improvement of their capabilities (Miao et al., 2007). When outcome
control is combined with capability control, salespeople may consid-
er their compensation tied to sales outcomes as an external indicator
of their capabilities, thereby leading to higher levels of compensation
seeking. Moreover, because outcome–activity control combination
may reinforce the perceived linkage of externally regulated activities
and monetary rewards, cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan,
1985) would predict that such control combination can enhance
salespeople's compensation seeking due to its external locus of
control. When activity control is combined with capability control,
salespeople's compensation seeking may be dampened. Capability
feedback links sales performance to the salesperson's ability to
apply varying selling approaches across different selling situations,
thereby leading to salesperson's strategy/ability causal attributions;
in contrast, activity control specifies a prescribed inventory of
routine behavioral activities that must be performed with little
differentiation of selling situations (Kohli, Shervani, & Challagalla,
1998), which gives rise to effort causal attribution. The simultaneous
employment of activity control and capability control may thus be
perceived as conflicting with each other (Wang et al., 2012) because
the causal inferences associated with these control styles are not
inherently compatible. Consequently, this may reduce salespeople's
overall confidence in their selling strategies (Simon, Snow, & Read,
2004), thereby leading to lower levels of compensation seeking. As
such, we expect that:
H3a. The positive effect of outcome control on compensation seeking is
moderated by capability control, such that the effect is stronger at higher
levels of capability control.
H3b. The positive effect of outcome control on compensation seeking is
moderated by activity control, such that the effect is stronger at higher
levels of activity control.
H3c. The positive effect of capability control on compensation seeking is
moderated by activity control, such that the effect is weaker at higher
levels of activity control.
3.4. Sales control interactive effects on recognition seeking
Capability control suggests that superior sales performance is
attributable to the salesperson's skills and competence demonstrat-
ed in the selling process. Therefore, salespeople may find it necessary
to seek the manager's and coworkers' feedback to confirm that their
improved sales outcome is indeed due to enhanced capability as
opposed to other factors (e.g., luck). As such, we expect capability
control to have a positive interactive effect with outcome control
on recognition seeking. Unlike capability assessment which can be
abstract and arbitrary, activity goals are more objective and detailed,
thereby allowing salespeople to attribute sales outcomes to fulfill-
ment of activity goals without having to rely on external validation
such as manager or peer recognition for confirmation. Therefore,
activity control is not expected to have an interactive effect with out-
come control on recognition seeking. Finally, as we previously
discussed, activity control gives rise to effort attribution which can
be at odds with the ability/strategy attribution rendered by capabil-
ity control, thereby confusing salespeople as to what selling behavior
will be most desired and recognized by the manager. As such, activity
control may weaken the positive effect of capability control on recogni-
tion seeking. We hypothesize the following:
H4a. The positive effect of outcome control on recognition seeking is
moderated by capability control, such that the effect is stronger at
higher levels of capability control.
H4b. The positive effect of capability control on recognition seeking
is moderated by activity control, such that the effect is weaker at
higher levels of activity control.
3.5. Relative effects of I/E motivation on salesperson job outcomes
In the sales control literature two job outcomes–sales performance
and job satisfaction–have been frequently studied (e.g., Challagalla &
Shervani, 1996; Jaworski & MacInnis, 1989; Oliver & Anderson, 1994).
While prior research suggests that the global intrinsic motivation is pos-
itively related to sales performance and job satisfaction (Artis & Harris,
2007; Oliver & Anderson, 1994; Spiro & Weitz, 1990; Weitz et al., 1986),
challenge seeking and task enjoyment may exhibit differential patterns
of impact. Salespeople who demonstrate high levels of challenge
seeking are task-oriented and tend to work both smarter and harder
(Miao et al., 2007), thereby leading to higher sales performance.
However, challenge seeking per se may not directly relate to job satis-
faction as failure to conquer a difficult task certainly will not enhance
one's job satisfaction. In contrast, task enjoyment may directly enhance
job satisfaction because the selling job is perceived as inherently inter-
esting and rewarding (Spiro & Weitz, 1990). Task enjoyment, however,
 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242 1237

may not be directly related to sales performance because salespeople
who enjoy the selling process are more willing to accept failure as a
learning experience at the expense of the immediate sales outcomes
(Amabile et al., 1994; Miao et al., 2007). While compensation seeking
may not directly relate to job satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 1985), it does
motivate salespeople to expend higher levels of effort in the selling
job in order to get higher sales performance and monetary rewards
(Amabile et al., 1994). Although there is no evidence linking recognition
seeking to immediate sales performance (Amabile et al., 1994; Miao et
al., 2007), recognition seeking is expected to enhance job satisfaction
due to the gratifying nature of positive feedback therein (Deci & Ryan,
1985).
Because the nature of the selling task constitutes important
boundary conditions (Weitz, 1981), we propose a potential moderator–
percentage of new customers in the salesperson's customer portfolio–that
may affect the relative effects of I/E motivation. When a higher percent-
age of customers served by the salesperson are in early relational stages
(i.e., new customers), more adaptation by the salesperson is necessary
in order to reduce the new customer's perceived uncertainty (Porter,
Wiener, & Frankwick, 2003), increase customer trust in the salesperson
(Hallen, Johanson, & Seyed-Mohamed, 1991), and enhance the
customer's relationship commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Because
salespeople high in challenge seeking and compensation seeking are
more likely to be adaptive and stay engaged in the selling process
(Amabile et al., 1994; Miao et al., 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000), their impact
on sales performance should be stronger when there are a higher per-
centage of new customers. We do not expect percentage of new cus-
tomers to moderate the effect of task enjoyment on job satisfaction
because to those who truly enjoy the sales job, selling is intrinsically
rewarding regardless of task varieties. In contrast, a higher percentage
of new customers may bring salespeople more opportunities to impress
their managers or peer, thereby strengthening the positive effect of
recognition seeking on job satisfaction. We expect the following:
H5a. The positive effect of challenge seeking on sales performance is
moderated by the percentage of new customers, such that the effect is
stronger at a higher percentage of new customers.
H5b. The positive effect of compensation seeking on sales perfor-
mance is moderated by the percentage of new customers, such that
the effect is stronger at a higher percentage of new customers.
H5c. The positive effect of recognition seeking on job satisfaction is
moderated by the percentage of new customers, such that the effect
is stronger at a higher percentage of new customers.
4. Research method
of activity, capability, and outcome control (e.g., Challagalla & Shervani,
1996; Kohli et al., 1998). Through the help of a marketing research
company a random list of 1371 industrial salespeople was obtained.
A two-wave mailing effort resulted in 223 completed salesperson
surveys, which represented a response rate of 16.3%. The sample was
composed primarily of men (78.6%) and the average salesperson had
a tenure of 9.6 (SD = 8.2) years at their present job. Comparisons of
early and late responses across study variables were made using t-tests,
which resulted in non-significant differences (p > .10), suggesting non-
response bias was not likely a serious concern (Armstrong & Overton,
1977).
4.2. Measurement model
All multi-item constructs were measured with scales adapted
from existing literature (see Appendix A). We also include salesper-
son characteristics (i.e., age, gender, educational level, and job ten-
ure) as covariates as they may affect salesperson motivation and
performance (Cron, 1984; Miao, Lund, & Evans, 2009; Netemeyer,
Alejandro, & Boles, 2004; Piercy, Cravens, & Lane, 2003), in addition
to controlling for the main effects of sales control systems. To mea-
sure the moderator new customer percentage, salespeople were asked to
provide an estimate of new customers as a percentage of their total
number of customers.
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using EQS 6.1 was performed
to assess the psychometric properties of the multi-item constructs
in the study. The measurement model had an acceptable fit
(χ2(558) = 1076.883, p b .01; NFI = .943, NNFI = .968, CFI = .972,
SRMR = .069, RMSEA = .065). All loadings of the multi-item constructs
were large, positive, and significant (p b .01), demonstrating convergent
validity (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991). To assess discriminant validity,
each pair of constructs was subjected to nested CFA model tests in
which a one-factor model was compared to a two-factor model using
chi-square difference tests; in each case the two-factor model had a sig-
nificantly better fit (p b .01). Moreover, the average variance extracted
(AVE) by each construct was greater than its shared variance with all
the other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Because the data came
from a single respondent, we also assessed the extent to which common
method variance (CMV) may exist in the data by including a common
method factor in the measurement model (Carson, 2007). It was
found that trait variance (average 84.7%) significantly exceeds both
method (average 4.6%) and error variance (average 10.7%) for all scales.
Because the method factor accounts for a very small percentage of
variance explained and our hypotheses involve various positive as
well as negative interactions that could not be easily explained by
CMV, we concluded that CMV was not likely a serious issue in this
study. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics of the data.

4.1. Sample and data collection 4.3. Hypotheses testing

The US manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20–39) provides the em- We used moderated regressions to test our hypotheses. We mean
pirical setting for our study for sufficient variance in the deployment centered all independent and moderator variables before creating the

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of latent constructs.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Activity control 5.26 1.15 1

2. Capability control 4.73 1.39 .72⁎⁎ 1
3. Outcome control 5.25 1.36 .74⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ 1
4. Challenge seeking 5.52 1.00 .38⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .41⁎⁎ 1
5. Task enjoyment 5.15 1.19 .40⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .50⁎⁎ 1
6. Compensation seeking 5.39 1.18 .30⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ 1
7. Recognition seeking 4.57 1.31 .33⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ 1
8. Sales performance 5.25 1.14 .37⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ 37⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ 1
9. Job satisfaction 5.40 1.07 .48⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎ .72⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ 1
⁎⁎ p b .01.
1238 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242

corresponding interactive terms. Results appear in Tables 2 and 3. In Table 3

addition, we also plotted significant interaction effects to provide visual Standardized regression results for sales performance and job satisfaction as criterion
variables.
depictions of how effects of independent variables vary with high vs.
low levels of the moderators (Fig. 2). Predictor variables Criterion variables
H1a suggests that outcome control and capability control have a Sales performance Job satisfaction
positive interactive effect on challenge seeking (β = .18, ns) and H1b
Covariates
states that capability control and activity control have a negative interac- Age −.00 .15⁎⁎
tive effect on challenge seeking (β = −.07, ns). Although in predicted Gender −.01 .12⁎⁎
directions, neither coefficient was significant; H1a and H1b were not Education level .03 .00
supported. H2a was supported as capability control strengthens the pos- Job tenure .07 .18⁎⁎
Activity control .10 .20⁎⁎
itive effect of outcome control on task enjoyment (β = .34, p b .05). As Capability control .06 .00
indicated in Fig. 2 (panel A), at a high level of capability control, outcome Outcome control .04 −.10
control has a positive effect on task enjoyment (β = .48, p b .01); at a Motivation constructs
low level of capability control, outcome control has a weaker effect Challenge seeking .18⁎⁎ .10⁎
Task enjoyment .15⁎ .60⁎⁎
(β = .29, p b .05). H2b was also supported because activity control
Compensation seeking .28⁎⁎ .09⁎
mitigates the positive effect of outcome control on task enjoyment Recognition seeking −.05 .03
(β = −.23, p b .05). Fig. 2 (panel A) also suggests that at a low level of Moderator
activity control, outcome control has a positive effect on task enjoyment New customer percentage −.17⁎⁎ −.01
(β = .56, p b .01); at a high level of activity control, outcome control Interactive effects
Challenge seeking × new customer −.12⁎ .05
has no effect (β = .19, ns). H2c was rejected as activity control does percentage
not moderate the effect of capability control on task enjoyment Task enjoyment × new customer .05 −.04
(β = −.03, ns). H3a was rejected as capability control does not moder- percentage
ate the effect of outcome control on compensation seeking (β = −.04, Compensation seeking × new customer .15⁎ −.09⁎
percentage
ns). H3b received support in that activity control strengthens the positive
Recognition seeking × new customer −.03 .08⁎
effect of outcome control on compensation seeking (β = .30, p b .05). percentage
Fig. 2 (panel B) indicates that at a high level of activity control, out-
⁎ p b .05 (one-tailed).
come control has a positive effect on compensation seeking (β = .36, ⁎⁎ p b .01 (one-tailed).
p b .01), whereas at a low level of activity control outcome control has no
effect (β = .08, ns). H3c was not supported as activity control and capa-
bility control have a negative but nonsignificant interactive effect on Surprisingly, we found that a high percentage of new customers
compensation seeking (β = −.19, ns). H4a received support as capabil- would make the positive effect on performance of challenge seeking
ity control strengthens the positive effect of outcome control on recogni- weaker (β = −.12, p b .05), which is opposite to what we had
tion seeking (β = .28, p b .05). Fig. 2 (panel C) suggests that at a low expected; H5a is rejected. Fig. 2 (panel D) shows that at a low percentage
level of capability control, outcome control has no effect on recognition of new customers, challenge seeking has a stronger effect on performance
seeking (β = −.04, ns), whereas at a high level of capability control, (β = .51, p b .01) than at a high percentage of new customers (β = .29,
outcome control has a positive effect on recognition seeking (β = .48, p b .05). It is possible that pursuing an excessively challenging goal
p b .01). H4b also received support where activity control weakens the (e.g., a large initial order size) when dealing with new customers can
positive effect of capability control on recognition seeking (β = −.22, actually be counterproductive. H5b was supported because the percent-
p b .05). Fig. 2 (panel C) indicates that at a low level of activity control, age of new customers strengthens the positive effect of compensation
capability control has a positive effect on recognition seeking (β = .43, seeking on performance (β = .15, p b .05). Fig. 2 (panel D) shows that
p b .01), whereas at a high level of activity control, capability control at a high percentage of new customers, compensation seeking has a
has a nonsignificant effect (β = .14, ns). stronger effect on performance (β = .59, p b .01) than at a low percent-
age of new customers (β = .40, p b .01). H5c received support as the
percentage of new customers amplifies the positive effect of recognition
Table 2
Standardized regression results for motivation constructs as criterion variables.
seeking on job satisfaction (β = .08, p b .05). Fig. 2 (panel E) shows
that at a high percentage of new customers, recognition seeking has a
Predictor variables Criterion variables stronger positive effect on job satisfaction (β = .49, p b .01) than at a
Challenge Task Compensation Recognition low percentage of new customers (β = .31, p b .01). Although not
seeking enjoyment seeking seeking hypothesized, compensation seeking and percentage of new customers
Covariates were found to have a negative interactive effect on job satisfaction
Age −.13⁎ .21⁎⁎ .01 .03 (β = −.09, p b .05). As shown in Fig. 2 (panel E), at a low percentage
Gender .05 −.02 .03 −.08
of new customers, compensation seeking has a positive effect on job
Education level .06 −.03 −.15⁎ .07
Job tenure .12⁎ .01 .00 .01 satisfaction (β = .70, p b .01) but at a high percentage of new customers
Activity control .15 .11 .06 −.11 compensation seeking has no effect (β = .09, ns).
Capability control .03 .10 −.06 .26⁎⁎
Outcome control .34⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ 5. Research implications
Interactive effects
Outcome .18 .34⁎ −.04 .28⁎
control × capability This study contributes to the sales literature by uncovering the
control more complex nature of sales control systems than has been demon-
Outcome −.00 −.23⁎ .30⁎ −.05 strated in the extant literature. Results reveal significant interactive
control × activity
effects of activity, capability, and outcome control on salesperson I/E
control
Activity −.07 −.03 −.19 −.22⁎ motivation. By disaggregating I/E motivation into their cognitive and
control × capability affective dimensions, we are able to examine differential sales
control control interactive effects on these distinct motivation constructs.
⁎ p b .05 (one-tailed). For example, while prior sales control research suggests that capability
⁎⁎ p b .01 (one-tailed). control and activity control may have differential and even opposite
 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242 1239

A) Effects On Task Enjoyment

Low Activity Control High Activity Control
Low Capability Control High Capability Control

4.5
6
4

Task Enjoyment
Task Enjoyment
5 3.5
4 3
2.5
3 2
2 1.5
1
1
0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outcome Control Outcome Control

B) Effect On Compensation Seeking

Low Activity Control High Activity Control
3
Compensation Seeking

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outcome Control

C) Effects On Recognition Seeking Low Activity Control High Activity Control

Low Capability Control High Capability Control

3.5
Recognition Seeking

4 3
Recognition Seeking

3.5
3 2.5
2.5 2
2 1.5
1.5
1
1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Outcome Control Capability Control

D) Effects On Sales Performance

Low New Customer% High New Customer%
Low New Customer% High New Customer%

4 4.5
3.5 4
Sales Performance

3 3.5
Sales Performance

2.5 3
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Challenge Seeking Compensation Seeking

E) Effects On Job Satisfaction

Low New Customer% High New Customer%
Low New Customer% High New Customer%

4 6
3.5 5
Job Satisfaction

3
Job Satisfaction

4
2.5
2 3
1.5 2
1
1
0.5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Recognition Seeking Compensation Seeking

Fig. 2. Analysis of interactive effects. A: Effects on task enjoyment. B. Effect on compensation seeking. C: Effects on recognition seeking. D: Effects on sales performance. E: Effects
on job satisfaction.
1240 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242
effects on salesperson's global intrinsic motivation (Challagalla &
Shervani, 1996), our results provide empirical evidence that activity
control weakens, whereas capability control amplifies, the positive
effect of outcome control on task enjoyment (an affective dimension
of intrinsic motivation). Because activity control and capability control
are not directly related to task enjoyment in this study, researchers
who only examine the main effects of sales control systems may
erroneously conclude that they are not relevant. Evidence in this
study suggests that activity control and capability control have
significant and opposite interactive effects with outcome control in
affecting the affective dimension of intrinsic motivation. Noteworthy
is that neither capability control nor activity control was found to
have an interactive effect with outcome control on challenge seeking
(a cognitive dimension of intrinsic motivation), which reveals the
value of distinguishing between the cognitive and affective dimen-
sions of salesperson motivation. Inconsistent results may result if a
global intrinsic motivation construct is used.
Outcome control and capability control seem to have positive
interactive effects only on affective (i.e., task enjoyment and recog-
nition seeking) but not cognitive (i.e., challenge seeking and com-
pensation seeking) dimensions of I/E motivation. When these two
types of control philosophies are employed simultaneously, salespeople
may attribute sales performance to the mastery of superior selling
skills/abilities because outcome–capability control combination
highlights the connection between salesperson skills and sales
outcomes. To the extent that capability control facilitates profes-
sional development and outcome control renders a high degree of
autonomy in applying skills/knowledge in various selling situa-
tions, outcome–capability control combination can make the sell-
ing task more enjoyable (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Moreover, when
outcome control is combined with capability control, salespeople
have an elevated need for recognition from their manager and
peer. Given that judgment of one's capability can be abstract and
subjective (Challagalla & Shervani, 1996), salespeople may find it
necessary to seek external validation that their sales performance
is indeed a result of improved competence. No significant interac-
tive effects on challenge seeking and compensation seeking of
outcome control and capability control were found. We speculate
that capability development takes time such that the simultaneous
deployment of capability control may not have immediate effects
on these cognition-based motivation dimensions; in contrast, the
joint presence of capability and outcome control can have immedi-
ate effects on affect-based motivation.
When outcome control is employed concurrently with activity con-
trol, they have a positive interactive effect on compensation seeking but
a negative interactive effect on task enjoyment. Activity control requires
salespeople to fulfill a pre-specified set of activities (e.g., call rate, account
visits, etc.) that are deemed by the management as necessary for achiev-
ing sales objectives (Kohli et al., 1998). Therefore, outcome–activity
control combination may suggest to salespeople the connection between
fulfilling activity goals and attainment of desirable sales outcomes. As
such, salespeople will likely attribute sales outcomes, at least in part, to
the fulfillment of required selling activities. In order to enhance outcome
performance expectancy, salespeople may subsequently increase effort in
achieving required activity goals due to the perceived causal relationship.
Because outcome–activity control combination highlights the linkage of
external locus of control and rewards, it can increase salespeople's extrin-
sic motivation in seeking monetary compensation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
However, activity control significantly restricts salesperson's autonomy
in the selling process, which can reduce salesperson perceived task enjoy-
ment when achieving sales outcome goals. Therefore, outcome–activity
control combination is a double-edged sword.
The concurrent deployment of capability control and activity control
appears to be a recipe for lowering the affective dimension (i.e., recog-
nition seeking) of extrinsic motivation. Activity control and capability
control cue salespeople for different causal attributions that may not
be perceived as cognitively compatible. That is, activity control may
contradict capability control as the former suggests effort in fulfilling
required routine activities across selling situations as the key to sales
outcomes, whereas the latter attributes sales performance to the
salesperson's ability to apply different strategies across sales encoun-
ters. For example, activity control may require salespeople to push a
new product across all customers, whereas capability control may sug-
gest it would be more appropriate to serve some customers with other
products the company carries (Ahearne et al., 2010). Therefore, such
incompatible inferences may subsequently reduce salespeople's confi-
dence in performance expectancy (Simon et al., 2004), thereby leading
to role confusion and a lower tendency to seek for recognition.
Overall, these findings reveal that differential interactive effects of
sales control systems operate through cognitive and affective dimen-
sions of I/E motivation, which provides compelling evidence that sales
control interactive effects must be included when studying relationships
among sales control systems, salesperson motivation, and job outcomes.
6. Managerial implications
This study also provides important managerial guidance for sales
managers. Managers are advised to deploy outcome control together
with capability control because they can jointly enhance salespeople's
task enjoyment and recognition seeking, the latter of which becomes
especially effective in enhancing job satisfaction when the salesperson
serves a higher percentage of new customers. When outcome control
is combined with activity control, compensation seeking may be en-
hanced at the expense of task enjoyment. Salespeople may perceive
the linkage between required activities and sales outcomes, thereby
highlighting the valence of activity-based tasks and expectancy for
monetary compensation. However, managers need to understand the
inherent tradeoff embedded in compensation seeking: as the salesper-
son serves a higher percentage of new customers, the positive effect
of compensation seeking on sales performance becomes stronger at
the expense of job satisfaction. Moreover, managers should use caution
when deploying activity control and capability control at the same time
because incompatible expectations therein may dampen recognition
seeking, which has a strong positive effect on job satisfaction when
the salesperson serves a higher percentage of new accounts.
7. Limitations and future research directions
The present study has some limitations that also provide opportuni-
ties for future research. First, our study employs a cross-sectional design
with data collected from salespeople as the only source. Although post
hoc statistical analysis suggests that CMV was not likely a serious threat
in this study, future research should nonetheless collect multi-source
data (e.g., customer-reported performance or objective archival data) or
longitudinal data for more robust testing. Second, we measured activity
control, capability control, and outcome control as global constructs.
Although these measures have been validated in prior research (Kohli
et al., 1998), they may not be sufficiently detailed. Indeed, Challagalla
and Shervani (1996) show that each type of control has three dimen-
sions–feedback, rewards, and punishments. How may those dimensions
have differential interactive effects on I/E motivation remains unclear.
In the same vein, measures of activity control are global in nature without
distinguishing between repetitive routine activities (e.g., sales report)
and those more strategic in nature (e.g., steps to overcome customer
objections), which may have led to some of the nonsignificant findings
in this study. Future research can develop more refined measures of
activity control to capture these nuances. Finally, our data came from
US manufacturing industries. Therefore, the generalizability of our find-
ings to the service industry or other cultural contexts cannot be assumed
without further testing.
 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242
Appendix A. Multi-item Scales
Activity Control (α = .86; AVE = .58; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
1 My manager informs me about the sales activities I am expected to perform.
2 My manager monitors how I perform required sales activities.
3 My manager informs me on whether I meet his/her expectations on sales
activities.
4 My manager readjusts my sales activities when necessary.
5 I would be recognized by my manager if I perform sales activities well.
Capability Control (α = .92; AVE = .69; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly
Agree)
1 My manager periodically evaluates the selling skills I use to accomplish a task
(e.g., how I negotiate).
2 My manager provides guidance on ways to improve my selling skills and
abilities.
3 My manager evaluates how I make sales presentations and communicate with
customers.
4 My manager assists me by illustrating why using a particular sales approach
may be effective.
5 I would be commended if I improve my selling skills.
Outcome Control (α = .93; AVE = .74; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
1 My manager tells me about the expected level of achievement on sales volume
or market share targets.
2 My manager monitors my performance on achieving sales volume or market
share targets.
3 I receive frequent feedback on whether I am meeting expected achievement on
sales volume or market share targets.
4 My manager ensures that I am aware of the extent to which I attain sales volume
or market share targets.
5 I would be recognized by my manager if I perform well on sales volume or
market share targets.
Challenge Seeking (α = .91; AVE = .72; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly
Agree)
1 I enjoy tackling sales problems that are completely new to me.
2 I enjoy trying to solve complex sales problems.
3 The more difficult the sales problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it.
4 I prefer work that stretches my abilities.
Task Enjoyment (α = .91; AVE = .73; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
1 What matters most to me is enjoying my selling job.
2 It is important for me to be able to enjoy my selling job.
3 I enjoy selling for the pleasure of it.
4 It is the experience of selling that gives me the most pleasure.
Compensation Seeking (α = .82; AVE = .65; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly
Agree)
1 I am strongly motivated by the money I can earn through my sales job.
2 I am keenly aware of the income goals I have for myself.
3 Money is the main motivator of my selling job.
Recognition Seeking (α = .78; AVE = .56; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly
Agree)
1 I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from my supervisor.
2 I want fellow workers to find out how good I really can be at work.
3 It is important that fellow workers look up to me.
Sales Performance (α = .84; AVE = .65; 1 = Poor, 7 = Outstanding)
1 Generating a high level of dollar sales
2 Generating sales of new products
3 Exceeding sales targets
Job Satisfaction (α = .92; AVE = .76; 1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree)
1 My job is satisfying.
2 My job is exciting.
3 I am really doing something worthwhile in my job.
4 The work I do gives me a sense of accomplishment.
References
Ahearne, M., Rapp, A., Hughes, D. E., & Jindal, R. J. (2010). Managing sales force product
perceptions and control systems in the success of new product introductions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 47(4), 764–776.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference
inventory: Assessing I/E motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 950–967.
Anderson, E., & Oliver, R. L. (1987). Perspectives on behavior-based versus outcome-based
salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 51(4), 76–88.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Artis, A. B., & Harris, E. G. (2007). Self-directed learning and sales force performance: An
integrated framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(1), 9–24.
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organiza-
tional research. Administrative science quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.
1241
Bradford, K., Brown, S., Ganesan, S., Hunter, G., Onyemah, V., Palmatier, R., et al. (2010).
The embedded sales force: Connecting buying and selling organizations. Marketing
Letters, 21, 239–253.
Brown, S., Evans, K., Mantrala, M., & Challagalla, G. (2005). Adapting motivation, control, and
compensation research to a new environment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 24(2), 155–167.
Carson, S. J. (2007). When to give up control of outsourced new product development.
Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 49–66.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for
personality — Social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1),
111–135.
Challagalla, G. N., & Shervani, T. A. (1996). Dimensions and types of supervisory control:
Effects on salesperson performance and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 89–105.
Churchill, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker, O. C. (1985). The determinants of sales-
person performance: A meta analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(2), 103–118.
Cravens, D. W., Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W., & Young, C. E. (1993). Behavior-based and
outcome-based salesforce control systems. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 47–59.
Cravens, D. W., Lassk, F. G., Low, G. S., Marshall, G. W., & Moncrief, W. C. (2004). Formal and
informal management control combinations in sales organizations — The impact on
salesperson consequences. Journal of Business Research, 57(3), 241–248.
Cron, W. L. (1984). Industrial salesperson development: A career stages perspective.
Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 41–52.
DeCarlo, T. E., Teas, R. T., & McElroy, J. C. (1997). Salesperson performance attribution
processes and the formation of expectancy estimates. The Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 17(3), 1–17.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Dixon, A. L., Spiro, R. L., & Forbes, L. P. (2003). Attributions and behavioral intentions of
inexperienced salespeople to failure: An empirical investigation. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 459–467.
Dixon, A. L., Spiro, R. L., & Jamil, M. (2001). Successful and unsuccessful sales calls: Measuring
salesperson attributions and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 64–78.
Fang, E., Evan, K. R., & Landry, T. D. (2005). Control systems' effect on attributional processes
and sales outcome: A cybernetic information-processing perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 553–574.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. L. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Hallen, L., Johanson, J., & Seyed-Mohamed, N. (1991). Interfirm adaptation in business
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 55, 29–37.
Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1989). Marketing jobs and management controls: Toward a
framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 406–419.
Jaworski, B. J., Stathakopoulos, V., & Krishnan, H. S. (1993). Control combinations in
marketing: Conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing,
57(1), 57–69.
Joshi, A. W. (2010). Salesperson influence on product development: Insights from a
study of small manufacturing organizations. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 94–107.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation (pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(2), 150–172.
Kohli, A. K., Shervani, T. A., & Challagalla, G. N. (1998). Learning and performance ori-
entation of salespeople: The role of supervisors. Journal of Marketing Research,
35(2), 263–274.
Kuster, I., & Canales, P. (2011). Compensation and control sales policies, and sales
performance: The field sales manager's points of view. The Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, 26(4), 273–285.
Mallin, M. L., & Pullins, E. B. (2009). The moderating effect of control systems on the
relationship between commission and salesperson intrinsic motivation in a customer
oriented environment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 769–777.
Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2007). The impact of salesperson motivation on role perceptions
and job performance — A cognitive and affective perspective. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 27(1), 89–101.
Miao, C. F., Evans, K. R., & Zou, S. (2007). The role of salesperson motivation in sales control
systems — I/E motivation revisited. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 417–425.
Miao, C. F., Lund, D., & Evans, K. R. (2009). Re-examining the influence of career stages
on salesperson motivation — A cognitive and affective perspective. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 243–255.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship market-
ing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Netemeyer, R. G., Alejandro, T. B., & Boles, J. S. (2004). A cross-national model of
job-related outcomes of work role and family role variables: A retail sales context.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(1), 49–60.
Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1994). An empirical test of the consequences of behavior-
and outcome-based sales control systems. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 53–67.
Oliver, R. L., & Anderson, E. (1995). Behavior- and outcome-based sales control systems:
Evidence and consequences of pure-form and hybrid governance. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 15(4), 1–15.
Onyemah, V., & Anderson, E. (2009). Inconsistencies among the constitutive elements
of a sales force control system: Test of a configuration theory-based performance
prediction. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(1), 9–24.
Piercy, N. F., Cravens, D. W., & Lane, N. (2003). Sales manager behavioral control strategy and
its consequences: The impact of manager gender differences. Journal of Personal Selling
& Sales Management, 23(3), 221–232.
Porter, S. S., Wiener, J. L., & Frankwick, G. L. (2003). The moderating effect of selling sit-
uation on the adaptive selling strategy – selling effectiveness relationship. Journal
of Business Research, 56, 275–281.
1242 C.F. Miao, K.R. Evans / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1233–1242
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of in-
trinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55, 68–78.
Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories:
Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(6), 814–837.
Smith, K., Jones, E., & Blair, E. (2000). Managing salesperson motivation in a territory
realignment. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20(4), 215–226.
Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, measurement,
and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 61–69.
Teas, R. K., & McElroy, J. C. (1986). Causal attributions and expectancy estimates: A framework
for understanding the dynamics of salesforce motivation. Journal of Marketing, 50, 75–86.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wang, G., Dou, W., & Zhou, N. (2012). The interactive effects of sales force controls on sales-
people behaviors and customer outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
32(2), 225–243.
Weitz, B. A. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: A contingency framework. Journal of
Marketing, 45, 85–103.
Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and adaptive behavior: A
framework for improving selling effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 174–191.