FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2154503313> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2154503313 endingPage "239" @default.
• W2154503313 startingPage "230" @default.
• W2154503313 abstract "Abstract Among the diverse strategies that businesses use to maximize sales, the customer-salesperson relationship as an aspect of relationship marketing has been reported as one of the most critical (O’Malley and Tynan, 1998 O’Malley, L. and Tynan, C. 1998. “Concept, metaphor or reality?: The prognosis for consumer-organizational relationships”. In New frontiers in relationship marketing theory and practice, Edited by: Sheth, J. and Menon, A. Atlanta, GA: Emory University. (June) [Google Scholar]). Although relationship marketing has been emphasized across various business settings, this strategy works particularly well in luxury markets for a number of reasons. For example, brands offering high involvement products (i.e., luxury brand products) focus on relationship marketing rather than those offering low involvement products (Martin, 1998). Previous researchers have recognized the role of various customers attributes in sales interactions (Walker et al., 1977 Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr. and Ford, N.M. 1977. Motivation and performance in industrial selling: present knowledge and needed research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(May): 156–68. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Weitz, 1981 Weitz, B.A. 1981. Effectiveness in sales interactions: a contingency framework. Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter): 85–103. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). One customer attribute that may play a role in moderating the association between the strength of customer-salesperson relationship and sales effectiveness is a customer’s tendency to self-monitor (Snyder, 1974 Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): 526–537. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). This is due to the fact that an individuals’ self monitoring tendency has been recognized as an influential personal disposition that accounts for differences in customer behavior especially in social contexts (Weitz, 1981 Weitz, B.A. 1981. Effectiveness in sales interactions: a contingency framework. Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter): 85–103. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Self-monitoring refers to the tendency to monitor (i.e., observe and control) self-presentations and expressive behaviors (Snyder, 1974 Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): 526–537. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). High self-monitors are individuals who are highly sensitive to social cues in an interaction situation; thus, they modify their behavior because they desire to look proper or preferable to others in that situation. Low self-monitors are individuals who regard their personal value system and private realities as important; thus, they tend to keep their self-presentation consistent across situations. We investigated to what extent does the strength of type of customer-salesperson relationship (i.e., social, functional) influence sales effectiveness and whether individuals’ self-monitoring moderated this relationship. This study contributes to theory concerning sales performance as it furthers understanding of how relationship type influences sales performance. It also provides practical information to luxury store sales managers by documenting the effectiveness of social versus functional relationship types. Furthermore, given that degree of self-monitoring has been reported to be easily recognized from observations of people (Snyder, 1974 Snyder, M. 1974. Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4): 526–537. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), the research identifies the role of a visible customer attribute in a selling situation thus providing concrete ideas for salespersons concerning how to best serve their customers. Twenty two stores located in eight of the largest department stores in Seoul, Korea were identified. Sales managers in the luxury brand stores were asked to be data collectors for the sample, each sales manager were asked to secure 10 respondents. They received a $5 gift card per completed questionnaire for compensation. Once a customer was informed of the nature of the research and agreed to participate, they were given a questionnaire that included information on consent in a booklet. Participants were given a $5 gift card for compensation. A total of 220 questionnaires were distributed and 187 were returned. Questionnaires with excessive incomplete responses were eliminated resulting in a final sample of 167. The questionnaire consisted of existing measures of sales effectiveness (Gilly et al. (1998 Gilly, M.C., Graham, J.C., Wolfinbarger, M.F. and Yale, L.J. 1998. A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 26(2): 83–100. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), satisfaction with purchase decisions Fitzsomons (2000 Fitzsimons, G.J. and Gavan, J. 2000. Consumer response to stockouts. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2): 249–266. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), sales associate-customer relationship type (Coulter and Ligas, 2000 Coulter, R.A. and Ligas, M. 2000. The long good-bye: the dissolution of customer-service provider relationships. Psychology of Marketing, 17(8): 669–695. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), and self-monitoring (Snyder, 1986 Snyder, M. 1986. On the nature of self-monitoring: matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 125–139. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Participants were female (95.2%). A large percentage were from 50 to 59 years of age (38.9%) followed by the category of older than 60 years of age (24%). The majority had more formal education than a college degree (89.8%). Participants shared that they had known their salesperson for an average of 3.4 years. Preliminary data analyses revealed Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was .92 for perceived salesperson effect on purchase decision, .89 for satisfaction with purchase decision, and .72 for self-monitoring. Next we verified the assumptions of the regression model testing normality of residuals, independence of residuals (Durbin-Watson statistic), linearity, and constant variance of the residuals (homoscedasticity). All assumptions were satisfied. Some of the correlations of the measures indicated possible problems of multicollinearity. In order to minimize correlations between the independent variables and interaction terms, the independent variables were mean-centered prior to the computation of the interaction terms (Aiken and West, 1991 Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. 1991. Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]). We checked variance inflation factor for each regression coefficient and results showed all factors were less than the threshold of 10. Multiple regression revealed that the strength of social relationship was positively related to perceived salesperson effect on purchase decision (β =.27, p<.001) and satisfaction with purchase decision (β=.28, p<.001). A functional relationship with a salesperson had no significant effect on purchase decision and satisfaction with purchase decision. Self-monitoring moderated the influence of a social relationship such that customers who were low self-monitors were more likely to indicate they were influenced by the salesperson for their purchase intentions if they perceived they had a strong social relationship with salesperson than a weak social relationship. However, when customers were high self-monitors, the perceived effect of a social relationship was reduced. Participants credited their salesperson with influencing their purchase decision as well as tended to be satisfied with their purchase decision when they thought they had a strong social relationship with a salesperson. These findings are consistent with those of Reynolds and Beatty (1999 Reynolds, K.E. and Beatty, S.E. 1999. Customer benefits and company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Marketing, 75(1): 11–32. [Google Scholar]) and Wagner et al. (2003 Wagner, J.A., Klein, N.M. and Keith, J.E. 2003. Buyer-seller relationships and selling effectiveness: the moderating influence of buyer expertise and product competitive position. Journal of Business Research, 56: 295–302. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The strength of functional relationships had no significant effect on either of our measures of salesperson effectiveness. The insignificant results could be due to the fact that customers with strong functional relationships with salespersons have no emotional connections or personal closeness with the salesperson. We extend prior work (Wagner et al., 2003 Wagner, J.A., Klein, N.M. and Keith, J.E. 2003. Buyer-seller relationships and selling effectiveness: the moderating influence of buyer expertise and product competitive position. Journal of Business Research, 56: 295–302. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Walker et al., 1977 Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr. and Ford, N.M. 1977. Motivation and performance in industrial selling: present knowledge and needed research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(May): 156–68. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) on investigating situational factors (i.e., customer attributes) influencing sales effectiveness. Our findings provide important implications for luxury retailers. Building a strong social relationship with customers is recognized as an important strategy in personnel selling. In order to maximize a relationship marketing strategy within limited resources, luxury retailers may want to inform their salespersons that it is more effective to try to build a strong social relationship with low self-monitors rather than high self-monitors since low self-monitors are predicted to have more tendency to be loyal to the salesperson due to their tendency to try to have shared attitudes and values with a personally close people (Snyder, Gangestad, and Simpson, 1983 Snyder, M., Gangestad, S. and Simpson, J. 1983. Choosing friends as activity partners: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45: 1061–1072. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) as well as to be receptive to the salesperson’s influence on their purchase decision when they have a strong social relationship with the salesperson. In contrast, because high self-monitors tend to have lower levels of interpersonal commitment and less stable social bonds than low self-monitors (Gangestad and Snyder, 2000 Gangestad, S.W. and Snyder, M. 2000. Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126: 530–555. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), it seems hard to obtain long-term loyalty from high self-monitors even though they may view themselves as having a strong social relationship with the salesperson." @default.
• W2154503313 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2154503313 creator A5058973542 @default.
• W2154503313 creator A5060344777 @default.
• W2154503313 creator A5083115160 @default.
• W2154503313 date "2010-11-01" @default.
• W2154503313 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2154503313 title "The Customer-salesperson Relationship and Sales Effectiveness in Luxury Fashion Stores: The Role of Self Monitoring" @default.
• W2154503313 cites W1971178109 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W1983883977 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W1994926945 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2003119551 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2003624093 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2010514415 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2012014934 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2015671938 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2024110803 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2029370015 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2034640785 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2063611614 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2066774529 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2067218936 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2067245865 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2076353884 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2090266480 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2093714429 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2094024559 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2115922855 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2126623320 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2327011051 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W2327866474 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W4234690516 @default.
• W2154503313 cites W4238132130 @default.
• W2154503313 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2010.10593074" @default.
• W2154503313 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W2154503313 type Work @default.
• W2154503313 sameAs 2154503313 @default.
• W2154503313 citedByCount "33" @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132012 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132013 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132014 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132016 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132017 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132018 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132019 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132020 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132021 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132022 @default.
• W2154503313 countsByYear W21545033132023 @default.
• W2154503313 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2154503313 hasAuthorship W2154503313A5058973542 @default.
• W2154503313 hasAuthorship W2154503313A5060344777 @default.
• W2154503313 hasAuthorship W2154503313A5083115160 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConcept C112698675 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConceptScore W2154503313C112698675 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConceptScore W2154503313C144133560 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConceptScore W2154503313C162853370 @default.
• W2154503313 hasConceptScore W2154503313C41008148 @default.
• W2154503313 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2154503313 hasLocation W21545033131 @default.
• W2154503313 hasOpenAccess W2154503313 @default.
• W2154503313 hasPrimaryLocation W21545033131 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W1978505276 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W1988022704 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W2003759321 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W2010805752 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W2046251599 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W2136710333 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W2187644337 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W281246900 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W3132716659 @default.
• W2154503313 hasRelatedWork W4206036160 @default.
• W2154503313 hasVolume "1" @default.
• W2154503313 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2154503313 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2154503313 magId "2154503313" @default.
• W2154503313 workType "article" @default.