Unleashing the power of salespersons’ implementation intentions through coaching
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
Purpose The purpose of the paper is to validate if managers (through the use of managerial coaching) can help subordinates develop implementation intentions to address difficult problems and situations with customers. These implementation intentions take the form of new task strategies and go beyond the automated mechanisms of providing more effort, persisting longer in the pursuit of goals or adapting old strategies to solve new problems. Design/methodology We designed a cross-sectional field study with a convenience sample of 184 salespeople from different companies. Respondents provided information concerning the coaching received from their supervisors, the degree to which they were able to develop implementation intentions in future encounters with customers, and sales performance. Data was analyzed using structural equation modeling in AMOS. Findings We found that coaching can help salespeople develop better implementation intentions and, thus, be more effective in their interactions with customers, ultimately increasing their sales performance. Originality The paper explores the use of coaching to help subordinates develop new task-oriented strategies, using two theoretical frameworks: implementation intentions and goal-setting.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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