Another look at motivating – and retaining – salespeople
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate to what extent salespeople are satisfied, dissatisfied or neither with various aspects of their job in ways predicted by the “two-factor model” assocating satisfaction with recognition and personal growth but not “hygiene factors.” It further investigates which aspects of the salesperson’s job are most strongly associated with commitment to the organization – or intention to leave. Design/methodology/approach Interviewers gathered data from 176 salespeople in 154 companies. Those data were analyzed to identify aspects of the salesperson’s job that are satisfiers, dissatisfiers or prompt indifference. The data were then correlated with the extent to which salespeople expressed commitment to their organization – and the extent to which they expressed likelihood of leaving their current job. Findings Aspects of the salesperson’s job do cluster into categories associated with the two-factor theory: satisfiers, dissatisfiers and other “hygiene factors” that are neither. However, two deviations from the theory appear. Pay is a satisfier, contrary to the assumptions behind the model, and factors beyond those intrinsic to the salesperson are also satisfiers. Supporting relevance of the theory for salespeople, however, is the strong association of recognition/personal growth aspects of the job positively with organizational commitment and negatively with intention to leave. Research limitations/implications Although the data come from a convenience sample of salespeople, the results can be useful. For example, consideration of new products and of mergers should take into account their impact on salesperson satisfaction and dissatisfaction as motivational issues. Originality/value This study is broader in focus than previous work relating the two-factor theory to salespeople, providing more confidence in the generalizability of the results.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".