Salesperson Influence on Product Development: Insights from a Study of Small Manufacturing Organizations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research addresses three questions: (1) How do salespeople get their desired product modifications implemented within organizations? (2) What effect does salesperson trustworthiness have on the means they adopt to get product modifications implemented? and (3) What are the performance outcomes of the modified products? The results from a survey of 149 product managers in small manufacturing organizations suggest that two influence strategies—rationality and exchange—have a positive impact and that two influence strategies—coalition building and upward appeal—have an inverse impact on product modification implementation. The results also show that salesperson trustworthiness enhances the positive effects of rationality and exchange while mitigating the inverse effects of coalition building and upward appeal. Finally, the results show that product modification implementation has a positive effect on the product's performance in the marketplace. Collectively, the results suggest that salespeople should adopt the rationality and exchange strategies to get their desired product modifications implemented while also developing a reputation for trustworthiness and that it pays for organizations to listen to their salespeople.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it