MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981737287 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v12n11p76

What Skills Make a Salesperson Effective? An Exploratory Comparative Study among Car Sales Professionals

2019· article· en· W2981737287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nour El Houda Ben Amor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeanship of Scientific Research, King Saud UniversityKing Saud University
KeywordsSkills managementActive listeningFlexibility (engineering)Thematic analysisAdaptabilityExploratory researchMarketingSales managementEmpathyPerceptionBusinessPossession (linguistics)PsychologyLife skillsQualitative researchSocial psychologyManagementPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores important skills of an effective salesperson as well as their impacts in terms of performance from both sales managers and sales representatives perspectives. An exploratory research was conducted on a total of 58 car sales professionals that comprise 30 sales managers and 28 salespersons. A thematic analysis of interviews content indicates existence of both similarities and differences in skills perceptions among the two groups of sales professionals. Salespeople reveal that to be effective they should have communication and listening skills, knowledge possession, sales presentation skills, flexibility and adaptability, empathy, cooperative skills, honest and ethical behavior, and time management skills. Sales managers, on the other hand, highlighted the importance of two additional skills, namely the follow-up and technology skills. From the skills gap, the study suggests implications for academicians and practitioners.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicManagement and Marketing EducationFrench-language works237,207