Advertisement

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 190–211 | Cite as

The impact of a sales team’s perceived entitativity on customer satisfaction

  • Chen WangEmail author
  • JoAndrea Hoegg
  • Darren W. Dahl
Original Empirical Research

Abstract

This research investigates the impact of a sales team’s entitativity—the extent to which a group of individuals is perceived as a unified single entity—on customer satisfaction. Four studies demonstrate that a sales team entitativity cue, either based on appearance (e.g., wearing the same outfit) or based on behavior (e.g., explicit coordination in service), leads to heightened perceptions of service quality, which subsequently enhances customer satisfaction. Further, these two entitativity cues are shown to have interactive effects. Specifically, when both cues indicate high entitativity, customer satisfaction with the sales team exceeds the average evaluation of individual team members. However, if at least one cue suggests low entitativity (e.g., different outfits or no explicit coordination), the positive influence of the entitativity cue is undermined and customer satisfaction with the team’s service is mitigated. Product category is identified as an important moderator of the main effect.

Keywords

Sales team Entitativity Service quality Customer satisfaction 

Supplementary material

11747_2017_573_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 1138 kb)

References

  1. Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahearne, M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Lam, S. K. (2010). The role of consensus in sales team performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 458–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnett, D., Macy, B., & Wilcox, J. (2005). The role of Core selling teams in supplier-buyer relationships. The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(1), 27–42.Google Scholar
  4. Auh, S., Spyropoulou, S., Menguc, B., & Uslu, A. (2014). When and how does sales team conflict affect sales team performance? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42, 658–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachrach, D. G., Mullins, R. R., & Rapp, A. A. (2016). Intangible sales team resources: Investing in team social capital and Transactive memory for market-driven behaviors, norms and performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 88–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barr, J. (2007). Outfits promote brand, inspire customer confidence. Northern Pennsylvania Business Journal, 22, 27–35.Google Scholar
  7. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertalanffy, L. V. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  9. Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 347–370). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (pp. 25–38). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cadogan, J. W., Lee, N., Tarkiainen, A., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Sales manager and sales team determinants of salesperson ethical behaviour. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 907–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caruana, A. (2002). Service loyalty: The effects of service quality and the mediating role of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 811–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheng, J. L. C. (1983). Interdependence and coordination in organizations: A role-system analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coovert, M. D., & Reeder, G. D. (1990). Negativity effects in impression formation: The role of unit formation and schematic expectations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived Entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1076–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environment. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Darke, P. R., & Dahl, D. W. (2003). Fairness and discounts: The subjective value of a bargain. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dasgupta, N., Banaji, M. R., & Abelson, R. P. (1999). Group entitativity and group perception: Associations between physical features and psychological judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 991–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Lemmink, J. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of the service climate in boundary-spanning self-managing service teams. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Jong, A., de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2006). Linking employee confidence to performance: A study of self-managing service teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 576–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. de Ruyter, K., de Jong, A., & Wetzels, M. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of environmental stewardship in boundary-spanning B2B teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4), 470–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., & Ramsey, R. P. (2003). An investigation of team information processing in service teams: Exploring the link between teams and customers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(4), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Denson, T. F., Lickel, B., Curtis, M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Ames, D. R. (2006). The roles of entitativity and essentiality in judgments of collective responsibility. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: Nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geier, A. B., Rozin, P., & Doros, G. (2006). Unit bias: A new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. Psychological Science, 17, 521–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gotlieb, J. B., Grewal, D., & Brown, S. W. (1994). Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: Complementary or divergent constructs? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 875–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 47–74). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 606–626). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilton, D. L., Chen, J. M., & Way, N. (2011). Dynamic aspects of entitativity: From group perception to social interaction. In R. M. Kramer, G. J. Leonardelli, & R. W. Livingston (Eds.), Social cognition, social identity, and intergroup relations: A festschrift in honor of Marilynn brewer (pp. 27–52). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hong, Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. (2001). The contribution of lay theories approach to the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 98–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ip, G. W., Chiu, C., & Wan, C. (2006). Birds of a feather and birds flocking together: Physical versus behavioral cues may lead to trait versus goal based group perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 368–385.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, S. E., & Joshi, A. (2004). Diversity in social context: A multi-attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 675–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jamal, A., & Anastasiadou, K. (2009). Investigating the effects of service quality dimensions and expertise on loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 398–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jones, E., Busch, P. S., Dacin, P., Dixon, A., Chonko, L., & Cannon, J. (2005). Key accounts and team selling: A review, framework and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(2), 181–198.Google Scholar
  41. Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., Hong, Y., et al. (2005). Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  44. Lambe, J. C., Webb, K. L., & Ishida, C. (2009). Self-managing selling teams and team performance: The complementary roles of empowerment and control. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levi, D. (2010). Group dynamics for teams (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..Google Scholar
  46. Lickel, B. (2000). Perceptions of interdependence and judgements of collective responsibility (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  47. Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group Entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who Else was to blame for the columbine high school shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liozu, S. M. (2015). Pricing superheroes: How a confident sales team can influence firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 47, 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maruff, P., Danckert, J., Camplin, G., & Currie, J. (1999). Behavioral goals constrain the selection of visual information. Psychological Science, 10(6), 522–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1994). Online and memory-based aspects of individual and group target judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McConnell, A. R., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1997). Target entitativity: Implications for information processing about individual and group targets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 730–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Uslu, A. (2013). Customer knowledge creation capability and performance in sales teams. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Miller, J. G. (1965). Living systems: Basic concepts. Behavioral Science, 10(3), 193–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moon, M. A., & Armstrong, G. M. (1994). Selling teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
  59. Moon, M., & Gupta, S. (1997). Examining the formation of selling centers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17, 31–41.Google Scholar
  60. Moorman, M. B., & Albrecht, C. (2008). Team selling: Getting incentive compensation right. Velocity, 10(2), 33–37.Google Scholar
  61. Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nelson, K., & Bowen, J. (2000). The effect of employee outfits on employee satisfaction. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 86–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Newheiser, A., Sawaoka, T., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Why do we punish groups? High Entitativity promotes moral suspicion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 931–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Oliver, R. L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 418–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Houston, M. B., Evans, K. R., & Gopalakrishna, S. (2007a). Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–salesperson and customer–firm relationships: Differential influences on financial outcomes. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2007b). Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12–40.Google Scholar
  69. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1994). Alternative scales for measuring service quality: A comparative assessment based on psychometric and diagnostic criteria. Journal of Retailing, 70(3), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Perry, M. L., Pearce, C. L., & Sims Jr., H. P. (1999). Empowered selling teams: How shared leadership can contribute to selling team outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19(3), 35–51.Google Scholar
  71. Raghubir, P., & Srivastava, J. (2009). The denomination effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rapp, A., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, T. (2010). Managing sales teams in a virtual environment. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86(1), 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robinson, G., & Dechant, K. (1997). Building a business case for diversity. Academy of Management Executive, 11(3), 21–31.Google Scholar
  75. Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of Entitativity and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Salojärvi, H., Sainio, L., & Tarkiainen, A. (2010). Organizational factors enhancing customer knowledge utilization in the management of key account relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(8), 1395–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmitz, C. (2013). Group influences of selling teams on industrial salespeople’s cross-selling behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schreier, M., Fuchs, C., & Dahl, D. W. (2012). The innovation effect of user design: Exploring consumers’ innovation perceptions of firms selling products designed by users. Journal of Marketing, 76, 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shao, C. Y., Baker, J., & Wagner, J. (2004). The effects of the appropriateness of service-contact-personnel dress on customer expectations of service quality and purchase intention: The moderating influences of involvement and gender. Journal of Business Research, 57(10), 1164–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sleep, S., Bharadwaj, S., & Lam, S. K. (2015). Walking a tightrope: The joint impact of customer and within-firm boundary spanning activities on perceived customer satisfaction and team performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 472–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Smith, M. (2015). The art of team selling, IA Magazine. http://www.iamagazine.com/magazine/read/2015/11/02/the-art-of-team-selling.
  84. Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1993). Team selling effectiveness: A small group perspective. Journal of Business to Business Marketing, 1(2), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Smith, R. W., Faro, D., & Burson, K. A. (2013). More for the many: The influence of Entitativity on charitable giving. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Solomon, M. R. (1985). Packaging the service provider. The Service Industries Journal, 5(1), 64–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The central role of entitativity in stereotypes of social categories and task groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Spreng, R. A., & Mackoy, R. D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Steward, M. D., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Kumar, A. (2010). The coordination strategies of high-performing salespeople: Internal working relationships that drive success. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 550–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Strutton, D., & Pelton, L. E. (1998). Effects of ingratiation on lateral relationship quality within sales team settings. Journal of Business Research, 43, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Summers, I., Coffelt, T., & Horton, R. E. (1988). Work-group cohesion. Psychological Reports, 63(2), 627–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Susskind, J., Maurer, K., Thakkar, V., Hamilton, D., & Sherman, J. (1999). Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Thakkar, V. (2006). Judgment polarization or negativity: The impact of perceived Entitativity on impressions about groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  94. Tu, Y. T., Yeh, R., Chuang, N. K., Chan, T., & Hu, S. M. (2011). Effects of employees’ outfit on company image and employees’ self- perceptions and customers’ perceptions. Asian Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 16, 635–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ustuner, T., & Godes, D. (2006). Better sales networks. Harvard Business Review, Special Double Issue, 84, 102–112.Google Scholar
  96. Welbourne, J. L. (1999). The impact of perceived entitativity on inconsistency resolution for groups and individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(5), 481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–322.Google Scholar
  98. Workman Jr., J. P., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational determinants of key account management effectiveness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-directed and stimulus-driven determinants of attentional control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance (pp. 73–103). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  100. Yilmaz, C., & Hunt, S. D. (2001). Salesperson cooperation: The influence of relational, task, organizational, and personal factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LeBow College of BusinessDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Sauder School of BusinessUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations