The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

“Converging on a new theoretical New

theoretical
foundation for selling” five years foundation

later: emerging priorities, new

applications, & directions for 685

ongoing research Received 26 October 2023

Revised 19 November 2023
Accepted 19 November 2023
Christopher R. Plouffe
Gary W. Rollins College of Business, University of Tennessee – Chattanooga (UTC),
Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
Nathaniel Hartmann
Muma College of Business, University of South Florida,
Tampa, Florida, USA, and
Bryan W. Hochstein
Marketing Department, Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business
Administration, University of Alabama, Northport, Alabama, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Not that long ago, half of all sales research was demonstrably if not unequivocally “atheoretical”
(Williams and Plouffe, 2007). The foundational argument of this paper is that stronger theoretical
development and application of theory in sales research is critical for the sales field to retain its relevancy. The
purpose of this paper is to underscore that deliberate and cogent application of HWV (2018) is scant in the
recent sales literature (over five years after publication in Journal of Marketing) for one or both of two reasons:
scholars either do not understand the paper and/or are fearful of (mis)applying it.
Design/methodology/approach – More than simply introducing the articles to this special issue of the
European Journal of Marketing (EJM), this paper also makes a number of important, overdue contributions.
Although Hartmann, Wieland and Vargo’s JM (HWV, 2018) theoretical and conceptual paper has been well-
received by the sales community, it has seen limited meaningful integration or application in sales research
since its publication. This paper thus clarifies key misunderstandings and misperceptions with HWV (2018)
so that sales researchers can more impactfully apply it to future sales research.
Findings – This paper identifies and then explains key aspects of service-dominant logic (S-D logic) and
commonly misapplied and/or misunderstood aspects of HWV (2018) to guide future sales research.
Ultimately, the overarching goal of this special issue of EJM is to focus a “spotlight” on sales theory
development, while simultaneously demonstrating – through the five articles the special issue reports – that
with purposeful effort, rich theoretical insights can effectively be applied to both “classic” and more current
and emergent sales research topics.
Research limitations/implications – Because HWV (2018) draw heavily upon S-D logic, it follows that
some aspects of their article have been misinterpreted or misapplied by sales scholars. In particular, the critical

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals, who assisted in the European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 58 No. 3, 2024
development of this paper: Greg Marshall (PhD). We would also like to acknowledge the helpful and pp. 685-703
professional staff at Emerald Publishing, including Richard Whitfield, Apurva Deorukhkar, and © Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
Ashwani Singh. DOI 10.1108/EJM-10-2023-0799
EJM concept of “crossing points” (both of the “thick” and “thin” variety) are explicated and detailed further, so as to
afford sales researchers with better knowledge and insight on how to apply these key tools within HWV (2018).
58,3 Practical implications – The practical implications of this paper primarily revolve around further
educating and clarifying for sales researchers “how” to better apply HWV (2018) to sales research, rather than
simply citing it in passing. The paper also concludes by providing a summary and introduction to each of the
five EJM special issue articles.
Originality/value – The originality and value of this paper and this special issue of the EJM is twofold. First,
686 both this paper and the entire special issue itself emphasize the ongoing importance of advancing sales research
through the meaningful and cogent application of theory. Second, the paper demonstrates that purposeful effort
can lead to successful applications of HWV (2018) – as exhibited by the five articles in the EJM special issue –
such that rich theoretical insights can be woven into both traditional and contemporary sales research topics.
Keywords Review, Sales, Selling, Buyer–seller relationships, Theory, SDL, Service-dominant logic
Paper type Research paper

While providing a rich body of insights over time (e.g. Verbeke et al., 2011; Flaherty et al.,
2018; Moncrief, 2017), sales research has also – and perhaps justifiably – received criticism
for relying too heavily on purely empirical, results-driven work instead of reporting research
grounded in a strong theoretical foundation. For example, Williams and Plouffe (2007, p. 414)
found that 50% of all published sales articles up to that time had no discernable theoretical
base or applied theory/perspective (the scope of that content analysis was all sales research
published to 2002, including 1,012 peer-reviewed articles). Put more directly, not that long
ago, half of all sales research was demonstrably if not unequivocally “atheoretical.” While
important marketing insights can of course be generated without developing or testing
“theory” per se (i.e. see Golder et al., 2023), and some unique sales phenomena may be best
suited to purely empirical “results-driven” work, our perspective is that richer application of
sales theory is ultimately needed if the field is to purposefully and meaningfully expose and
explain modern sales phenomena (see also, Plouffe et al., 2008, p. 86).
Therefore, stronger theoretical development and application in sales research is a topic
worthy of investigation in its own right. As such, the overarching goal of this special issue of
the European Journal of Marketing (EJM) is to focus a “spotlight” on sales theory
development, while simultaneously demonstrating – through the five articles the special
issue reports – that with purposeful effort, rich theoretical insights can effectively be applied
to both “classic” and more current and emergent sales research topics.
Hartmann, Wieland and Vargo (hereafter HWV, 2018) recently authored a Journal of
Marketing (JM) article which put forth a fresh and timely new sales theoretical framework.
Their work offers the field a unique perspective, one which includes a rich set of tools and
“lenses” through which virtually all sales research can be better contextualized and more
soundly developed. HWV (2018) accentuate the importance of institutions (i.e. norms, values,
beliefs, routines, among other coordinating heuristics), institutional arrangements (sets of
institutions) and a broad set of actors purposefully creating, maintaining and disrupting
institutions to exchange and value co-creation (i.e. for sellers, buyers and others). As such,
HWV’s (2018) theoretical framework can richly account for diverse and germane sales
phenomenon receiving attention in the past, present and future, including scholars’
increasing recognition and research attention focused on:
 the preponderance of growing market complexity (e.g. Rapp et al., 2020; Hartmann
et al., 2020; Cron, 2017);
 nonlinearities within the sales process (e.g. Moncrief and Marshall, 2005; Dixon and
Tanner, 2012);
  coordination of critical intrafirm activity as well as key noncustomer stakeholders across New
the sales processes (e.g. Plouffe et al., 2016; Bolander et al., 2015; Bradford et al., 2010); and theoretical
 the blurring of customer-facing responsibilities and sales tasks, as these sometimes foundation
now get integrated with other roles (e.g. Hughes et al., 2012; Hochstein et al., 2021;
Rapp et al., 2020), among others.

HWV (2018) has been well-received by the sales community and larger marketing community
– in fact, it won the Shelby D. Hunt/Harold H. Maynard Award in 2018 as the best JM article on
687
marketing theory that year. Unfortunately, since it was published, there has been limited
meaningful integration and application of HWV (2018) to current sales research. To illustrate,
HWV (2018) has been cited hundreds of times (per Google Scholar), yet focused and applied
leveraging of the paper is scarce, with most current sales research(ers) simply citing HWV 2018
“in passing,” almost as an expected courtesy or rite-of-passage in the publication process. After
all, HWV 2018 was the first conceptual/purely theoretical sales piece in JM since the 1980s (e.g.
Cron, 1984), with the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science also publishing just one to
two high-level theory/conceptual papers over the past three or so decades (e.g. Weitz and
Bradford, 1999) and only one recently (Ahearne et al., 2022).
Our take on this is that deliberate and cogent application of HWV (2018) is scant in the
recent sales literature (over five years after publication in JM) for one or both of two reasons:
 scholars either do not understand the paper and/or
 are fearful of (mis)applying it.

However, not unlike other groundbreaking papers in marketing that took time to garner
“traction” and eventually be regularly applied by scholars (a few excellent examples across
the decades being Vargo and Lusch, 2004; Kotler, 1972; Fournier, 1998; Folkes, 1988), we too
acknowledge that it often takes time for applications of (new) theory and concepts to emerge
and be extended into fresh research topics and new paradigms of inquiry. This EJM special
issue thus provides a platform for such extension, while also providing a “roadmap” which
we hope assists others in charting important, needed new paths forward for sales research.
Owing to this background and context, this special issue of EJM was conceived of as a
“sandbox” for scholars to develop new conceptual research that extends and/or applies
HWV (2018) to recharacterize and chart new paths forward for both “classic” and emergent
topics in sales research. To accomplish the development of such conceptual, theory-driven
research, we (the Editors of this EJM special issue) encouraged a number of experienced
sales scholars to mentor teams of emerging sales researchers, with the goal of applying
HWV (2018) to salient sales topics. These teams of experienced and emerging sales
researchers were formed at a new conference, entitled the Sales Researchers’ Collaboration
Consortium [1] (or SRRC, www.utc.edu/SRCC). The SRCC’s founding principle is to bring
together sales researchers, specifically experienced scholars to mentor pre-tenure faculty
focused on sales research as their primary area of expertise. The SRCC was held at the
University of Tennessee – Chattanooga [2], bringing together nearly two dozen early career
sales scholars from the USA, Canada and Europe who were mentored by over a dozen
highly accomplished sales scholars. Every SRCC participant self-identified into one of five
“tracks” via survey before the conference – specific topical areas in sales research. Each
group then embarked on an application of HWV (2018) to their track/topical domain. These
tracks featured the following research themes related to the sales ecosystem:
 The IDSR (intraorganizational dimension of the sales role) and sales teams;
 political skill, interpersonal influence and networking
EJM  aligning seller–buyer goals and customer success (CS);
58,3  technology and AI-shaped buyer–seller interactions; and
 salesperson motivation, compensation and deployment

Although each resultant article in this EJM special issue started with a basic theme and was
initially fleshed out at the SRCC (Fall ‘22) within each of the five tracks, the content and direction
688 of each article was ultimately developed over an entire calendar year by each team in the time
after the SRCC conference. All papers underwent a multiround, double-blind peer-review process,
resulting in the five articles that appear next. It is important to underscore that ultimately, each of
these papers is a thought piece. Given this, these articles cannot be viewed as “right or wrong.”
Rather, it is our sincere hope that each paper will be viewed as a well thought-out and
intentionally provocative piece, each designed to move sales research forward from a theoretical
perspective, while providing numerous directions and ideas for promising new sales research.
Next, key aspects of service-dominant logic (S-D logic) are reviewed. Then commonly
misapplied and/or misunderstood aspects of HWV (2018) are discussed and expanded on to guide
future sales research. This is followed by a summary of each article in the EJM special issue.

Fundamental tenants of service-dominant logic

HWV (2018) draw heavily upon S-D logic and its lexicon. While many sales scholars are
aware of S-D logic’s existence (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2004), our experiences and reading of
the sales literature since publication of HWV (2018) lead us to believe that few sales scholars
are, as of 2023, aware of what exactly this logic asserts and the nuances of how to actually
apply it to sales research. Our purpose here is not to provide a comprehensive overview of
S-D logic, although we do recommend key works that should help interested scholars develop
a more comprehensive understanding (e.g. Vargo and Lusch, 2004, 2008, 2016, 2018).
S-D logic emphasizes the importance of service [3], which is defined to be the application of
knowledge and skills for another’s benefit (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, 2016). S-D logic asserts that
exchange, regardless of whether exchange entails services or goods or any combination thereof,
essentially entails service, which is “a process of using one’s resources for the benefit of another
entity” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p. 7, emphasis in original). In fact, S-D logic argues that the
application of knowledge and skills for another’s benefit (i.e. service) can occur directly via
services or indirectly via goods. Furthermore, S-D logic asserts that although service is always
exchanged for service, this may not always be obvious because service is often exchanged
through complex combinations of services and goods. To alleviate confusion regarding service
and goods, S-D logic underscores that goods are distribution mechanisms for service as
knowledge and skills are used to construct the good and, therefore, ultimately provide the benefit.
S-D logic also emphasizes that customers are always cocreators of value. That is, S-D
logic asserts “value obtained in conjunction with market exchanges can not be created
unilaterally but always involves a unique combination of resources and an idiosyncratic
determination of value” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p. 8, emphasis in original). This assertion
indicates that value is not created by one actor and delivered to another actor. Rather, the
degree of value an actor realizes from an exchange with another is shaped by their own and
other relevant actors’ knowledge, skill and other resources, as well as the environment. That
is, the value a focal actor ultimately receives from an exchange is shaped by factors
including how the focal actor puts what is exchanged to use, what resources and capabilities
the focal actor has or can access to put what is exchanged to use, as well as the desirability
of the outcome the focal actor seeks. On such basis, S-D logic proposes that “Value is always
uniquely and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch, 2008, p. 9,
emphasis in original).
 S-D logic has increasingly emphasized that service-for-service exchange occurs in New
systems commonly referred to within the literature as service ecosystems. Lusch and Vargo theoretical
(2014, p. 24) define a service ecosystem as “a relatively self-contained, self-adjusting system
of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional logics and mutual value
foundation
creation through service exchange.” Service ecosystems are dynamic as:
Each instance of resource integration, service provision, and value creation, changes the nature of
the system to some degree and thus the context for the next iteration and determination of value 689
creation. (Vargo and Lusch, 2011, p. 185).
Institutions (i.e. norms, values, beliefs, routines, among other coordinating heuristics) and
institutional arrangements (i.e. interrelated sets of institutions) are instrumental to
understanding resource integration, service provision and value creation within these
service ecosystems because they guide actors thinking and behavior (Wieland et al., 2017;
Vargo, 2020). In fact, S-D logic points to institutions, institutional arrangements and the
process (i.e. institutional work) through which institutions are created, maintained and
disrupted as “the keys to understanding human systems and social activity, such as value
cocreation in general” and thus the “structure and functioning of service ecosystems” (Vargo
and Lusch, 2016, p. 11).

Aspects of HWV (2018) that have been misapplied or misunderstood

Because HWV (2018) draw heavily upon S-D logic, it follows that some aspects of their
article have been misinterpreted or misapplied by sales scholars. In this regard, Table 1
details many of the key aspects of HWV (2018) which sales researchers misunderstand,
misapply – or both. In the subsections that follow, we will discuss some aspects as well as
subsequent commentaries on HWV (2018) (e.g. Hartmann et al., 2020) in a way that helps
sales researchers better understand and appreciate the perspective advanced by HWV
(2018) so they can apply it in their own research. Some aspects are not discussed either
because sufficient explanation is provided in Table 1 or because relevant and extended
discussion elsewhere provides greater clarity than what could be provided in the space
afforded here.
Clarifying crossing points and their abundance. HWV (2018) use the term crossing point
(per Baldwin, 2008) to refer to a location where service is exchanged for service. Baldwin
(2008) originally used the term, in the context of systems of production, to refer to locations
where transfers of material, information and energy between two subsystems occur.
Baldwin (2008, p. 63) defines a subsystem as “group{s} of elements, such as tasks, that are
highly interdependent on one another, but only minimally dependent on what happens in
other modules.” That is, the tasks performed within a subsystem tend to be more closely tied
to other tasks performed within that subsystem than they are with the tasks of another
subsystem. Baldwin (2008) also details that unique bundles of knowledge and skills are
associated with each subsystem and that crossing points permit the tasks or output of one
system to be exchanged or combined with that of another.
HWV (2018) and others, including Simon (1996) whose work Baldwin draws upon,
indicate that dynamic social systems (e.g. service ecosystems) are also composed of
somewhat independent subsystems (i.e. modules). Subsystems can be examined at various
levels of aggregation. A researcher, for example, could examine countries or industries as
subsystems, as they could individual firms, sets of actors or even individual actors (after all,
not only are individuals composed of sets of cells ultimately organized into systems of the
body that interact as Simon (1996) points out but also units of knowledge and skill that
combine to form higher-level orders of knowledge and skill [e.g. prospecting skills,

(2018)
Table 1.
misunderstood
aspects of HWV
Misapplied and/or
Aspect or feature of HWV’s (2018) HWV’s (2018) actual claim on this
theoretical perspective of selling aspect
Thickening of crossing points HWV (2018, p. 7). “Thin crossing
points permit exchange through
shallow and simple interactions,
whereas thick crossing points
require actors to develop deep and
complex interactions to exchange
with one another (Baldwin and
Clark, 2000)”
Where selling occurs Selling is the “interaction between
actors aimed at creating and
maintaining thin crossing points –
the locations at which service can be
efficiently exchanged for service –
through the ongoing alignment of
institutional arrangements and the
optimization of relationships”
(HWV, p. 2)
What or how researchers misapply
or misunderstand this aspect of
HWV (2018)
Some scholars have indicated that
salespeople or firms want to
thicken their own crossing points
after making a sale. Scholars have
argued that thickening their own
crossing points creates a lock-in
and makes it more difficult for
buyers to defect
Some scholars have suggested that
because selling is aimed at creating
and maintaining thin crossing
points, selling should occur where
crossing points are thinnest. The
absence of salespeople at the
thinnest of crossing points (e.g.
vending machines, online ordering,
automated purchasing) suggests a
problem with the selling definition
58,3
EJM
690
Further clarifications and additional detail
Salespeople and firms generally want to thicken
crossing points regarding competitor solutions
because doing so makes it easier for them to
gain and maintain businesses. For example, as a
customer becomes more dependent on a seller’s
proprietary software that makes performing the
customer’s tasks easier, the customer is less
likely to defect to a competitor. Thickening one’s
own crossing points is counterproductive, as it
typically makes exchange more challenging for
both buyers and sellers
Importantly, selling involves interaction
between actors, ongoing alignment of
institutional arrangements and the optimization
of relationships. As HWV (2018, p. 10) state:
“The notion of dialogical interaction further
clarifies our definition of selling. Our definition
excludes unidirectional forms of communication
such as advertising because such forms lack
interactional components. It also excludes
interactions that solely rely on existing
institutions and do not result in any
adjustments, adaptations, and compromises
between and among actors. Thus, we do not
consider activities purely focused on order
fulfillment as selling if such activities fail to
contribute to sense making, legitimization, and
the optimization of relationships”
(continued)

Aspect or feature of HWV’s (2018)
theoretical perspective of selling
Institutional processes and
competitive processes
Multitiered objectives can lead to
cooperation and competition
Table 1.
HWV’s (2018) actual claim on this
aspect
HWV (2018) describe institutional
alignment processes as involving
the “ongoing negotiations,
experimentation, competition, and
learning” (Zietsma and McKnight
2009, p. 145) of systemic actors.
HWV (2018) also talk about the
participation of broad sets of
actors, including competitors, in
value creation. Furthermore, HWV
(2018) discuss the deliberate
thickening of crossing points for
competing solutions and
hampering the legitimacy of
competing solutions. Thus, while
competition was not the main
focus of the paper, it explicitly
addresses it
HWV (2018) do not explicitly
indicate that multitiered objectives
can lead to cooperation and
competition. However, the
manuscript does point out that that
actors compete to have institutions
that align with their solution (or
narrative) accepted and that such
competition often entails aligning
with aspects of existing solutions
and departing from others. Thus
HWV (2018) permit such an
inference
What or how researchers misapply
or misunderstand this aspect of
HWV (2018)
Some scholars have suggested that
because HWV (2018) do not
explicitly indicate competitive
processes are institutional
processes and they do not have a
specific section dedicated to
competition, that the thought
advanced by HWV (2018)
overlooks competitive processes
Some scholars have suggested that
the perspective HMW (2018)
provides overemphasizes harmony
and underemphasizes competition
Further clarifications and additional detail
Actors perform institutional work as they
advance their own interests. These interests can
be consistent or inconsistent with those of other
actors. When their interests are inconsistent,
actors often compete to advance their own
interests by performing institutional work. For
example, salespeople of one firm may compete
with those of another firm as they seek to have
the buyer view the problem in a way that their
firm is best suited to address; or actors in the
selling firm may work with journalists to
publicize the importance of features, benefits
and advantages that differentiate their solution
from others
Cooperation and competition are often complex.
Even direct competitors often cooperate. For
example, direct competitors may cooperate to
support the view that the problems their
solutions address is substantive and even
advocate for a certain approach to addressing it.
At this level, these direct competitors are
“cooperators.” However, these same direct
competitors may also point to specific aspects of
the problem as being more important to address
and/or make the case that aspects of their
solution are better at addressing the problem
than their competitors
(continued)
691
foundation
theoretical
New

Table 1.
Aspect or feature of HWV’s (2018)
theoretical perspective of selling
Micro, Meso, and Macro levels of
aggregation
The term “Actors”
HWV’s (2018) actual claim on this
aspect
HWV (2018) indicate that there are
micro, meso and macro levels
which we can use to view
phenomenon. In the manuscript,
the tying of certain units (e.g.
industries, firms, dyads of sellers
and buyers) and phenomenon to
certain levels can leave the
impression that there are specific
clearly defined boundaries between
the micro, meso and macro
HWV (2018) use actor to refer to
broad sets of humans and
creations (e.g. firms) that take on
certain roles and thus perform
certain activities and possess
certain motivations
What or how researchers misapply
or misunderstand this aspect of
HWV (2018)
Scholars have applied HWV (2018)
as it was written
Some scholars have noted
confusion with the “actor” term
because it is typically used to
characterize specific roles (e.g.
salesperson, buyer)
58,3
EJM
692
Further clarifications and additional detail
In HWVA (2020), the authors discuss how levels
of aggregation can be used to zoom in on and
out from different levels of aggregation. The
authors discuss how viewing phenomenon from
different levels of aggregation can lead to
different insight about units and phenomenon
that occurs at the micro, meso and macro levels.
For example, understanding the relationship
between a specific salesperson and their
supervisor can be aided by considering the
relationships that this salesperson and
supervisor have with others, the culture of the
sales function, the industry they work in and the
country they work in
The term actor is intentionally used because it is
very broad and actors often fundamentally do
similar things and have similar motivations (e.g.
serve oneself and others). While there can be
advantages of using labels, such as job titles,
there can be disadvantages which limit
understanding of selling processes because
customers can “sell,” salespeople can “buy” and
“collaborators” can compete
(continued)

Aspect or feature of HWV’s (2018)
theoretical perspective of selling
The perspective advanced is
“metatheoretical”
Source: Authors’ own work
Table 1.
HWV’s (2018) actual claim on this
aspect
HWV (2018) claim that while the
perspective advanced is
metatheoretical, the thinking and
logic can also be used to
understand phenomenon occurring
at both the meso and micro levels,
as well
What or how researchers misapply
or misunderstand this aspect of
HWV (2018)
Some scholars still criticize or
misapply the theory on the
unfounded basis that because it is
metatheoretical (and abstract) it
cannot explain phenomenon at the
meso or micro levels
Further clarifications and additional detail
Theory development requires varying
theoretical levels of abstraction (e.g.
metatheoretical, midrange or
microfoundational). It was not HWV’s (2018)
intent to develop or bridge all theoretical levels
of abstraction but, by offering a novel
metatheoretical foundation, to invite other
scholars in the sales community to develop these
levels in collaboration. Because previous work
on S-D logic has been successfully applied to all
levels of aggregation (macro, meso and micro)
and across all levels of theoretical abstractions
(Vargo et al., 2023), HWV argue that S-D logic
offers much promise to also serve as a
metatheoretical foundation for selling
693
foundation
theoretical
New
EJM networking skills, relationship building skills, selling skills] that interact). Furthermore,
58,3 researchers could oscillate foci recognizing crossing points within and between subsystems
by, for example, accounting for individual employees (e.g. salespersons, brand managers)
that are part of higher-level subsystems such as functions (e.g. sales, marketing), which are
part of higher-level subsystems such as firms, which are part of higher-level subsystems
such as industries, and so on.
694 Furthermore, HWV (2018, p. 6) point out that in dynamic social systems such as service
ecosystems, “specialized knowledge and abilities required for value creation often come
from a variety of other actors or groups of actors [. . .]” who “work on a limited number of
tasks that are part of a larger task system in which actors exchange resources and cocreate
value.” That is, actors (i.e. individuals, firms and other entities) and sets of actors tend to
specialize by performing certain tasks and exchange with others who perform other tasks to
cocreate value. Such exchanges and thus crossing points are often more numerous and
broader than what one intuits. Furthermore, the nature and composition of these
subsystems as well as exchanges and the location of crossing points are shaped by broad
sets of actors and the institutions that broad sets of actors create, maintain and disrupt.
To make this clearer, we introduce an example in which the exchange of service-for-
service between two firms in the form of microprocessors for economic compensation
happens at an obvious crossing point. Presume company MicProc is a manufacturer of
microprocessors, and LapManu purchases these microprocessors as input for laptops it
manufacturers. MicProc has accumulated many competencies regarding the design,
engineering and manufacturing of microprocessors. MicProc has also developed
competencies to source the raw inputs of the microprocessors it creates. In addition, MicProc
has developed competencies to work through legal and regulatory issues regarding
microprocessors. Meanwhile, LapManu has accumulated a wealth of competencies
regarding design, engineering, manufacturing, sourcing of inputs, legal and regulatory
issues and sale of laptops. In doing so, LapManu has carefully considered what
competencies it wishes to develop and apply as well as which competencies it wishes to rely
on others for. In this example, LapManu, for whatever reasons, has decided to rely on the
competencies of MicProc by purchasing microprocessors from MicProc.
Consider that the crossing point where microprocessors are exchanged for economic
compensation is influenced by the activities of many other actors inside and outside these
firms and across time. LapManu, for example, sources motherboards and operating systems
from other vendors, and these components need to be compatible with MicProc’s offerings.
Furthermore, when buying LapManu’s products, many customers view the microprocessor
as an essential component in their buying decision. Thus, the crossing point is not only
influenced by MicProc’s technical specifications but also its brand perception.
Even more broadly, diverse sets of actors have developed the publicly and privately
available knowledge that was built upon over extended periods of time that led to what
computers and microprocessors are in 2023. That is, these computers and microprocessors
are based on knowledge that others produced years, decades, centuries and even millennia
before. Similarly, actors have also contributed to the development of institutions commonly
shared among persons within the industry and society that have created the need for such
technologies and various subsystems (e.g. legal, economic, electric, transportation) to
support them. That is, it is only possible to produce and/or exchange these goods because of
institutions (and actors) that have contributed to the creation and reshaping of complex
subsystems, such as an economic system.
Also, consider that while the example has an obvious crossing point, exchange between
firms often entails the creation of many less obvious crossing points. We extend our
example to make this clearer. MicProc and LapManu, and specifically their engineers, New
created crossing points as they applied their knowledge and skills for the benefit of another theoretical
as they exchanged information (e.g. specifications) and resources (e.g. sample chips and
sample laptops) before the exchange of large numbers of microprocessors for economic
foundation
compensation took place. Of course, other selling center members of MicProc and buying
center members of LapManu created crossing points as they exchanged information with
one another about use cases, pricing, budget, anticipated demand and supply details.
Even less obvious are the crossing points created within each firm. For example, in 695
MicProc, selling center members, as well as functions, performed unique tasks (e.g.
manufacturing the chips, creating buyer communications regarding the chips, pricing the
chips, storing and transporting the chips) requiring their respective unique knowledge and
skills, and negotiated and exchanged information with one another. That is, different
organizational functions (e.g. sales, marketing, operations, finance, accounting) and sets of
actors within each function (e.g. inside B2B salespeople, outside B2B salespeople) performed
unique sets of tasks, and thus apply specialized knowledge and skills. The tasks that each
particular function, such as the sales function, performed were likely more closely tied to
other tasks performed by that function than that of other functions, just as the tasks
performed by roles within a function (e.g. inside B2B salespeople) were likely more closely
tied to other tasks performed by that role (e.g. inside B2B salespeople) than with the tasks
performed by other roles (e.g. outside B2B salespeople). Inside B2B salespeople, for example,
might be responsible for generating and qualifying leads that they pass on to outside B2B
salespeople and thus develop and apply greater knowledge and skills than outside B2B
salespeople pertaining to how to source leads, how to qualify through observables (e.g. lead
behavior on websites, firm size, changes in firms, etc.) and questions, identify pain points,
follow-up on leads that were not prospects, etc. Crossing points are created as these
functions and actors exchange directly (e.g. the passing on of qualified leads) and indirectly
(e.g. outside B2B salespeople convert qualified leads into sales which produces revenue for
the firm that is then used to compensate inside B2B salespeople). Institutions serve to guide
the creation and boundaries of these subsystems (i.e. functions, roles) as well as exchange
between them.
Thin(ning) and thick(ening) crossing points. Crossing points can range from being very
thin to very thick. Baldwin (2008, p. 166) indicates that thin crossing points are created
when:
Labor is divided between two domains and most task-relevant information {is} hidden within
each one, {since} then only a few, relatively simple transfers of material, energy, and information
need to pass between the domains.
Baldwin (2008) also notes that transactions occur at both thin and thick crossing points, but
that transactions in production systems often occur where crossing points are relatively
thinner because at thinner crossing points, information and skills unique to an exchanging
party can be more cleanly isolated to a particular subsystem and the costs of transacting
lower. Baldwin (2008) points to describing, communicating, negotiating, counting, writing
contracts, assessing the meeting of contracts and valuing what is being exchanged as tasks
that increase the costs of transacting. Baldwin (2008) further explicates that shared
understandings, expectations and obligations regarding what is being reciprocally
exchanged and how much is being exchanged lower transaction costs.
HWV (2018), building on the work of Baldwin (2008), emphasize the importance of
aligning institutions (i.e. norms, values, beliefs, expectations, etc.) between sellers, buyers,
stakeholders (Friedman and Miles, 2002) and other actors as a means of creating shared
EJM understandings, expectations and obligations regarding exchange and thus lowering the
58,3 costs of exchanging. Furthermore, HWV (2018, p. 9) underscore the importance of selling,
which they define as:
Interaction between actors aimed at creating and maintaining thin crossing points – the locations
at which service can be efficiently exchanged for service – through the ongoing alignment of
institutional arrangements and the optimization of relationships.
696 That is, selling actors and salespeople, specifically, can lower the costs of exchange by
facilitating the alignment of institutions (i.e. norms, values, beliefs, expectations, etc.)
between the buyer and others (e.g. employees within the buying firm, employees within the
selling firm, advocates, industry leaders, competitors) and creating relationships that aid in
managing institutional misalignments that may remain or emerge. In doing so, they
emphasize that selling and the creating, maintaining and disrupting of institutions and,
thus, institutional alignment processes involve broad sets of actors and occur over extended
periods of time.
In some contexts, such as those where transaction selling is common, task-relevant
knowledge and skills can be cleanly hidden and applied within one domain and pre-existing
institution alignments relied upon to generally keep the costs of transacting minimal. As
HWV (2018) point out, sometimes, within these contexts, crossing points can become so thin
that human-to-human interaction between the parties directly participating in the exchange
can be limited and even unnecessary if tasks performed by humans can be automated by
technology or assigned to the buyer. That is, there may be little or no need for a salesperson
or other human actor to directly interact with a buyer to facilitate exchange when
obligations regarding what is purchased, the amount it will be purchased for, the currency
to be used, the lack of harm that will ensue, etc., are so well defined and entrenched because
of shared institutions.
Often, very thin crossing points grew thinner over extended periods of time, with
salespeople playing a critical role at some point and contributing to the thinning of such
crossing points. Consider, for example, most business-to-consumer sales contexts where new
automobiles are sold by dealerships and purchased by consumers. At one point in time, this
process entailed relatively extensive contact between salespeople and consumers. However,
such contact as well as the importance of the typical salesperson to the exchange has
decreased over time as a result of thinner crossing points, aided by the advent and
institutionalization of various technologies (e.g. websites that depicted automobiles and
detailed automobile specifications, provided manufacturer recommended pricing
information and information on customer negotiations, reviewed or compiled reviews of
particular automobiles, valued trade-ins and provided financing information) that fostered
shared institutions between car salespeople and consumers before they ever met. As this
and other contexts (e.g. automatic reordering or online reordering in business-to-business
sales) point to, in many situations in which salespeople no longer play a critical role or any
role at all, salespeople at one point were often involved in the thinning of crossing points. For
example, automobile salespeople in the past, as they do in 2023, often directed consumers to
online websites that contributed to shared institutions.
However, HWV (2018) point out that in many contexts, such as those where consultative
and relationship selling are used, task-relevant knowledge and skills often overlap domains
as problems are complex and solutions often multifaceted and tailored in both design and
application. Yet, there is often costs and risk (e.g. competitive) to sharing task-relevant
knowledge and skills, and a pronounced need to align institutions to reduce transaction
costs. In these contexts, crossing points can be so thick that exchange is only possible
through complex and deep interactions that leverage the task-relevant knowledge and skills New
from overlapping domains and by thinning crossing points by continually aligning theoretical
institutions to create and maintain shared understandings, expectations and obligations
regarding the exchange (Hartmann et al., 2018; Baldwin and Clark, 2000). Moreover,
foundation
relationships formed between actors serve as a basis of creating trust, thus permitting the
existence of working through ambiguities and uncertainties inherent to such contexts. For
example, salespeople and engineers among other actors at Advanced Micro Devices, a
manufacturer of semiconductors, as of 2023, often have intense and protracted discussions 697
with prospective customers that entail the reciprocal exchange of sensitive information as
they develop specifications and design semiconductor chips for specific applications. Such
discussions often entail the development of relationships that foster mutual trust and
commitment, permitting Advanced Micro Devices and prospective customers to move
toward a strategic partnership.
The preceding example highlights several important implications regarding modern
salespeople. It indicates that salespeople tend to be most needed and valuable when crossing
points are thick and need to be thinned to facilitate exchange, such as in contexts where
consultative and relational selling approaches are often used. That is, when crossing points
are inherently thicker, it becomes more important and valuable for salespeople to partake in
information exchange, communicate expectations, negotiate, write contracts, develop
relationships, among other activities, because doing so thins and/or maintains such crossing
points (HWV, 2018). However, when crossing points are very thin, it can become less
important and valuable for salespeople to partake in information exchange, communicate
expectations, negotiate, write contracts and develop relationships, among other activities,
because many of these activities are already being performed by technology and/or not
needed because of shared institutions. While the costs of having a salesperson interact with
a buyer may not always be perceived to be offset by the benefits salespeople contribute,
institutional arrangements regularly change, creating new opportunities and challenges.
Therefore, there is often a benefit of having salespeople interact and develop relationships
with customers such that they can learn of and act upon institutional misalignments. For
example, in a B2B context, a salesperson may gather knowledge about emerging customer
issues and dissatisfactions that help a company engineer a new solution to cannibalize its
existing solution before a competitor does. Or perhaps the salesperson, through their
interactions with customers, comes to learn of another need that the customer has that an
offering they represent addresses.
Crossing points and coopetition. When competing, it is often in firms, salespeople and
other actors’ interests to thin crossing points regarding their own offering(s) and thicken
those of competitors (HWV, 2018). HWV (2018) discuss the success of the company
Salesforce in this regard. The Salesforce’s solution was touted by the company and its
salespeople as permitting employees to access the software anywhere with an internet
connection. This contributed to prospective CRM system purchasers coming to expect
greater convenience, which thickened the crossing points for many other CRM system
providers whose solutions, at the time, required people to be on the company’s physical
premises to use the system. However, these other CRM system providers and their
salespeople would often tout this on-site storage and use as a good security practice which,
at least initially, contributed to thicker crossing points regarding Salesforce’s solution.
Nonetheless, as software-as-a-service became more institutionalized throughout society and
the conveniences and security it afforded more recognized, crossing points regarding
Salesforce thinned, which eased efforts of Salesforce and its salespeople to introduce it into
various companies.
EJM A common misunderstanding is that an actor, all things equal, would like to thin crossing
58,3 points for its offerings before making the sale and then thicken them for its offerings after the
sale. The logic underlying this common misunderstanding is based on the idea that an actor
increasing the thickness of its offering’s crossing points after sale would result in greater
lock-in. However, it is thinning of the crossing points pertaining to the offerings that make a
buyer less likely to stop using the offerings, and the thickening of the crossing points
698 pertaining to competitors’ solutions that make it less likely those competitive solutions are
considered or purchased. After all, thickening crossing points regarding an offering lead to
differences in understandings, expectations and obligations with customers and thus
customer dissatisfaction, churn and negative word of mouth. Hence, as the paragraph above
indicates, a firm prefers thin crossing points for its own solutions and thick crossing points
for competitor solutions both pre and postpurchase because this makes it easier for a buyer to
initially exchange with a focal firm, easier for the buyer to continue to exchange with the
focal firm and more difficult for the buyer to exchange with competitor firms.
However, it is not always as simple as thinning crossing points regarding one’s offerings
and thickening crossing points regarding others’ offerings because actors have multiple
goals and trying to obtain certain goals can incentivize cooperation with actors that they
might be competing against as they try to obtain other goals. That is, while firms often
compete with other firms and salespeople often compete with salespeople in their firms and
other firms, competing firms and competing salespeople often cooperate. This is because the
outcomes that these parties desire are often multifaceted and nested (e.g. Homburg et al.,
2023; Raza-Ullah et al., 2014; Wieland et al., 2017). Such cooperation is often referred to as
coopetition (see Homburg et al., 2023; Yami et al., 2010; Tidström, 2014). Consider the
Salesforce example mentioned. While Salesforce (and its salespeople) and its competitors
might compete to thin crossing points regarding their own solution and thicken those of
competitors, they often did so in ways that contributing to the thinning of crossing points
for customer relationship management systems as a whole. We see a similar pattern with
conversational intelligence software providers in 2023. These providers often put forth
similar communications intended to bring about institutional alignments that permit broad
actors to come to similar conclusions about what conversational intelligence is and the
benefits it entails. However, they (and their salespeople) compare and contrast aspects of
their offerings with competitors in an attempt to shape institutions such to make their
offerings more attractive and differentiate themselves from others.
We believe there is substantial opportunity to examine how firms and salespeople both
compete and cooperate within sales contexts. We believe that concepts and ideas discussed
in the literature HWV (2018) draw upon and encase within their own work (e.g. modularity,
crossing points, institutional work, institutions) can be valuable in further understanding of
coopetition in the sales context.

Introducing the EJM special issue articles: five applications and extensions of
HWV (2018)
Here we provide some introductory remarks and observations on the five EJM articles
appearing in this special issue. We tackle the articles in the order with which they appear in
this issue of the journal.

Article # 1: “Salespeople and teams as stakeholder and knowledge managers: a service-

ecosystem, co-creation, crossing-points perspective on key outcomes”
The first article in the special issue delves into the growing significance of the
“intraorganizational dimension of the sales role” (IDSR, see Plouffe, 2018), by considering
this underresearched area through a service-ecosystem theoretical lens. Sweeping and New
comprehensive in scope, the article goes beyond the IDSR/internal aspect of the sales role by theoretical
considering the vendor (selling) organization’s interactions with both internal and external
stakeholders so as to establish and sustain advantageous “thin crossing points” (HWV,
foundation
2018). The article has a trifold focus to:
 assess the significance of enhancing interactions both within and outside the vendor
firm to thin crossing points; 699
 further advance the notion of the sales ecosystem from a theoretical perspective; and
 present a collection of pivotal research questions for future exploration.

By amalgamating insights from existing literature, the authors propose a comprehensive

framework (Figure 1) that encompasses the full spectrum of unique interactions and
enduring relationships experienced by the modern sales force. They discuss the strategic
importance of thinning crossing points, as well as the competitive disadvantages and
potential risks associated with “thick” crossing points. An ambitious research agenda is
advanced that includes provocative questions and issues, each aimed at stimulating further
examination of the IDSR from a sales-ecosystem, multistakeholder, multioutcome (i.e. not
solely “performance”) perspective. From a practical perspective, the article communicates to
managers the imperative and value of enhancing interactions both within and outside the
firm through the thinning of crossing points.

Article # 2: “Charting the course: a framework for networking across the selling ecosystem”
The second article also explores the concept of “thin crossing points,” but from a social
network perspective. The paper outlines specific networking strategies that can empower
salespeople to facilitate mutually beneficial resource exchanges (i.e. thinning crossing
points) within and across the sales ecosystem. The authors consolidate existing theoretical
viewpoints, ultimately establishing a conceptual framework for better understanding sales-
related networking dynamics among three critical groups within the sales ecosystem:
(1) intraorganizational sales actors;
(2) customer actors; and
(3) external partner organizations.

The viewpoint espoused in the article is that selling actors engage in reciprocal resource
exchanges as part of the value co-creation process. To thin crossing points with key sales
ecosystem participants, sales professionals need to use networking strategies that
deliberately consider the constraints of time and trust inherent in network relationships. The
article thus makes a valuable contribution in that it introduces an innovative conceptual
framework and the “theoretical mechanics” for increasing our understanding of networking
strategies in sales, emphasizing the development of social capital and the efficient thinning
of crossing points across the sales ecosystem.

Article # 3: “Orchestration of value: the role of customer success managers within sales
ecosystems”
The third article in the special issue bridges the domains of CS management research with
the sales ecosystems perspective in an effort to enhance comprehension of the CS
management function and expected outcomes for firms that implement it. While the practice
of CS management is becoming increasingly commonplace in the business world, there is a
EJM lack of theoretical frameworks capable of explaining this function. To address this, the
58,3 authors leverage the service ecosystems perspective to illustrate how CS management is
translated into real-world practice, offering valuable insights supported by practical
industry examples. The article unearths significant ecosystem actors who act on behalf of
the customer, playing a pivotal role in delivering desirable customer outcomes. In addition, a
link is established between the coordination efforts of CS managers and theoretical
700 principles, thereby clarifying how, precisely, CS management contributes to the attainment
of competitive advantages by influencing the thickness and thinness of ecosystem crossing
points. From a practical standpoint, the authors also introduce the “Customer Relationship
and Solution Innovation Matrix.” This matrix integrates the essential value-creating
activities performed by CS managers given their collaboration with internal actors,
highlighting their critical role in creating value.

Article # 4: “Integrating technology within the sales-service ecosystem: the emergent sales
techno-ecosystem”
This paper begins by noting that while sales organizations are quick to adopt technological
innovations, ultimately, it is the willingness of salespeople to actually embrace and use the
new technology that will impact a firm’s return on investment. This underscores the delicate
balance firms must strike when implementing new technology solutions into the salesforce.
The authors synthesize the sales technology (ST) literature through the lens of the service
ecosystem perspective, introducing the sales techno-ecosystem framework. This framework
offers fresh insights into the decision-making processes related to the ongoing digital
transformation of sales functions. Given the synthesis of ST literature within the service
ecosystem perspective, the authors explore four unique viewpoints, or perspectives:
Perspective 1 delves into the sales-service ecosystem framework, establishing theoretical
foundations and key terminology; Perspective 2 summarizes critical elements of the ST
literature and where research needs are most pressing; Perspective 3 then details the
situations and contexts where technology plays the largest role given the interactions
between buyers and sellers today; finally, Perspective 4 presents a set of guiding principles
and formulates research questions for each principle. The culmination of these four
perspectives introduces five essential tenets, with these proposed by the authors to guide
both firm-level strategy as well as future sales research. In the end, the article offers a unique
take and new theoretically driven insights into the transformative impact of technology
within evolving buyer–seller relationships, ultimately helping organizations navigate the
complexities of the digital transformation journey in sales.

Article # 5: “Salesperson motivation, compensation, training, and deployment within the

sales ecosystem”
The final article in the special issue provides an interesting and provocative take on some
“classic” issues and themes in sales research which broadly fall under the umbrella of sales
management-related topics. Applying the SD-L and the service ecosystem theoretical
framework, the authors examine the convergence of sales and service, underscoring the
necessity of intertwining these two functions to create a seamless customer experience and
enhance overall firm performance. The paper advocates for practical applications of the
HWV (2018) theoretical framework in the realm of sales management. More specifically, it
identifies four key strategic roles for sales managers, mapping out the tactical actions
associated with each role. Concrete examples illustrate how these sales management actions
can lead to the “thinning” or “thickening” of service-exchange crossing points, which in turn
affect the customer experience and business outcomes. The article concludes by outlining an
ambitious future research agenda, one which encompasses critical areas such as sales New
recruitment, onboarding and training, motivation and leadership of sales teams, and theoretical
performance evaluation and reward system optimization.
foundation
Conclusion
In conclusion, a tremendous amount of work and effort has gone into this special issue of
EJM. Our hope is that this introduction to the special issue and, more critically, the five 701
articles themselves serve to stimulate new work in sales – work which is either predicated
upon, grounded within or a demonstrably rich application of HWV (2018). We would be
remiss if we did not formally acknowledge and thank a number of individuals and
stakeholders. First and foremost, thanks to Dr Greg Marshall, Editor-in-Chief of EJM. Greg
was supportive of this special issue proposal from the start, and was instrumental in not
only shaping its direction, but more critically, also acted as a key catalyst to working with
the publisher of EJM, Emerald. Next, we would like to thank the people who tirelessly and
professionally worked with us on this special issue at Emerald Publishing, most notably:
Richard Whitfield and Apurva Deorukhkar. Thanks also to Heiko Wieland who graciously
provided comments and insights on key aspects of HWV (2018) discussed and expanded on
within this article. Thanks also to the mentors, senior sales researchers and junior faculty
who attended the first 2022 SRCC conference and consortium, who developed these thought
provoking articles. To all, a job well done! Now on to the articles.

Notes
1. The first full SRCC was hosted and funded by the Gary W. Rollins Endowed Chair in Sales,
Christopher R. Plouffe, at the Gary W. Rollins College of Business, University of Tennessee –
Chattanooga (UTC) from September 29 to October 1, 2022. Additional financial support was
generously provided by the SEA (Sales Education Foundation).
2. The SRCC is planned as a Bi-Annual Consortium and Conference, with an initial “trial run”
generously hosted by the University of Alabama – Birmingham (2021), and the first official SRCC
at UTC (2022). Plans call for the 2024 SRCC to be held at the University of Alabama in
Tuscaloosa, AL.
3. In the S-D logic, service is commonly referred to as service provision and ultimately purposefully
spelled in the singular form by Vargo and Lusch (2008).

References
Ahearne, M., Atefi, Y., Lam, S.K. and Pourmasoudi, M. (2022), “The future of buyer-seller interactions: a
conceptual framework and research agenda”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 22-45.
Baldwin, C.Y. (2008), “Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries
of firms”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 155-195.
Baldwin, C.Y. and Clark, K.B. (2000), Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, MIT press, London.
Bolander, W., Satornino, C.B., Hughes, D.E. and Ferris, G.R. (2015), “Social networks within sales
organizations: their development and importance for salesperson performance”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 1-16.
Bradford, K., Brown, S., Ganesan, S., Hunter, G., Onyemah, V., Palmatier, R., Rouziès, D., Spiro, R.,
Sujan, H. and Weitz, B. (2010), “The embedded sales force: connecting buying and selling
organizations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
EJM Cron, W.L. (1984), “Industrial salesperson development: a career stages perspective”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 41-52.
58,3
Cron, W.L. (2017), “Macro sales force research”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 188-197.
Dixon, A.L. and Tanner, J.F. Jr (2012), “Transforming selling: why it is time to think differently about
sales research”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 9-13.
702 Flaherty, K.E., Lassk, F., Lee, N., Marshall, G.W., Moncrief, W.C., Mulki, J.P. and Pullins, E.B. (2018),
“Sales scholarship: honoring the past and defining the future (key takeaways from the 2018
American Marketing Association Faculty Consortium: New Horizons in Selling and Sales
Management)”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 413-421.
Folkes, V.S. (1988), “Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: a review and new directions”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 548-565.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Friedman, A. and Miles, S. (2002), “Developing stakeholder theory”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Golder, P.N., Dekimpe, M.G., An, J.T., van Heerde, H.J., Kim, D.S. and Alba, J.W. (2023), “Learning from
data: an empirics-first approach to relevant knowledge generation”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 319-336.
Hartmann, N.N., Wieland, H. and Vargo, S.L. (2018), “Converging on a new theoretical foundation for
selling”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Hartmann, N.N., Wieland, H., Vargo, S.L. and Ahearne, M. (2020), “Advancing sales theory through a
holistic view: how social structures frame selling”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 221-226.
Hochstein, B., Chaker, N.N., Rangarajan, D., Nagel, D. and Hartmann, N.N. (2021), “Proactive value co-
creation via structural ambidexterity: customer success management and the modularization of
frontline roles”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 601-621.
Homburg, C., Hohenberg, S., Atefi, Y. and Ruhnau, R.-C.M. (2023), “Coopetition in the presence of team
and individual incentives: evidence from the advice network of a sales organization”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 1-23.
Hughes, D.E., Le Bon, J. and Malshe, A. (2012), “The marketing-sales interface at the interface: creating
market-based capabilities through organizational synergy”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 57.
Kotler, P. (1972), “A generic concept of marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 46-54.
Lusch, R.F. and Vargo, S.L. (2014), Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Moncrief, W.C. (2017), “Are sales as we know it dying . . . or merely transforming?”, Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 271-279.
Moncrief, W.C. and Marshall, G.W. (2005), “The evolution of the seven steps of selling”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 13-22.
Plouffe, C.R. (2018), “Is it navigation, networking, coordination . . . or what? A multidisciplinary review
of influences on the intraorganizational dimension of the sales role and performance”, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 241-264.
Plouffe, C.R., Bolander, W., Cote, J.A. and Hochstein, B. (2016), “Does the customer matter most?
Exploring strategic frontline employees’ influence of customers, the internal business team, and
external business partners”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 106-123.
Plouffe, C.R., Williams, B.C. and Wachner, T. (2008), “Navigating difficult waters: publishing trends and
scholarship in sales research”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, p. 79.
Rapp, A., Gabler, C. and Ogilvie, J. (2020), “A holistic perspective of sales research: areas of New
consideration to develop more comprehensive conceptual and empirical frameworks”, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 227-233. theoretical
Raza-Ullah, T., Bengtsson, M. and Kock, S. (2014), “The coopetition paradox and tension in coopetition foundation
at multiple levels”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 189-198.
Simon, H.A. (1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT press, London.
Tidström, A. (2014), “Managing tensions in coopetition”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 261-271.
703
Vargo, S.L. (2020), “From promise to perspective: reconsidering value propositions from a service-
dominant logic orientation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 87, pp. 309-311.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008), “Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2011), “It’s all B2B. . .and beyond: toward a systems perspective of the
market”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 181-187.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-
dominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2018), The SAGE Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic, SAGE
Publications, London.
Vargo, S.L., Linda, P., Hans, K., Kaisa, K.-H., Suvi, N., Francesco, P., Debora, S. and Claudia, V. (2023),
“Emergence in marketing: an institutional and ecosystem framework”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 2-22.
Verbeke, W., Dietz, B. and Verwaal, E. (2011), “Drivers of sales performance: a contemporary meta-
analysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 407-428.
Weitz, B.A. and Bradford, K.D. (1999), “Personal selling and sales management: a relationship
marketing perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 241-254.
Wieland, H., Hartmann, N.N. and Vargo, S.L. (2017), “Business models as service strategy”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 925-943.
Williams, B.C. and Plouffe, C.R. (2007), “Assessing the evolution of sales knowledge: a 20-year content
analysis”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 408-419.
Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, B. and Le Roy, F. (2010), Coopetition: winning Strategies for the 21st
Century, Edward Elgar Publishing, New York.
Zietsma, C. and McKnight, B. (2009), “Building the iron cage: institutional creation work in the context
of institutional work”, Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations, Jul 16, p. 143.

Corresponding author
Christopher R. Plouffe can be contacted at: chris-plouffe@utc.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com