Journal of Strategic Marketing, 2014

Vol. 22, No. 1, 59–72, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876062

Sales force management practices in organizations with a supportive

climate towards creativity
Leonidas A. Zampetakis*

Department of Production Engineering & Management, Technical University of Crete,

Chania, Crete, Greece
(Received 15 September 2011; accepted 30 July 2013)

In this research paper, the author draws on the theoretical insights of the organizational
creativity and marketing literatures, and empirically examines the link between
creative working environments and human resource management practices in the sales
force. A questionnaire survey from a random sample of 168 sales managers from
different industries was used. Exploratory structural equation modeling and
independent t-tests were used for the analyses. Results provide evidence that
companies with working environments that support creativity place greater importance
in the implementation of general sales force management practices, namely
(1) selection and placement, (2) training, (3) performance appraisal, and (4) pay and
bonus systems compared to firms with less supporting environments toward creativity.
Keywords: sales force management; organizational creativity; exploratory SEM

1. Introduction
With the increasing rate of competition, being creative is considered as an important
competitive advantage for firms’ success and survival (Basadur, Taggar, & Pringle, 1999;
Gilson, 2008). Creativity is defined as the production of new and useful ideas concerning
products, services, processes, and procedures (Amabile, 1996), and it is the first step
toward innovation (e.g. the implementation of the ideas) (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby,
& Herron, 1996; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Increasingly, creativity has become valued
across a variety of tasks, occupations, and industries, and can serve to set any organization
apart from its peers through the creation of novel products, streamlined workflows, or
innovative ideas (Im & Workman, 2004).
Firms, however, rely on their sales efforts to sustain themselves. Increasing evidence
suggests that sales, in the twenty-first century, are changing; they become more strategic
than operational with the salespersons increasingly acting as relationship managers rather
than as traditional order-takers (Storbacka, Ryals, Davies, & Nenonen, 2009). The sales
force is becoming the most critical and expensive marketing resource for companies in
many industries (Zoltners, Sinha, & Lorimer, 2008). Nevertheless, despite the importance
of the sales management element of the marketing mix, the role of creativity is a relatively
unexplored area in the sales force management practices that firms employ.
We attempt to contribute to this endeavor by drawing on the conceptual framework
related to ‘culture and marketing’ originally developed by Deshpande and Webster (1989).
According to this framework, a firm’s organizational culture is an important element on
the management of the marketing function. In the present paper, we investigate the link

*Email: lzabetak@dpem.tuc.gr

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

60 L.A. Zampetakis

between work climate (a surface manifestation of culture) that is conducive to creativity

and sales force management practices (e.g. selection, training, and compensation).
Predominantly, the creativity literature has focused its attention on the individual
examining the personality characteristics of creative individuals (Feist, 1998; Gough, 1979;
Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Recent marketing studies have argued that salespersons’
creativity plays an important role in their effectiveness; salespersons should attempt to
approach customers using a range of approaches and offerings (Bonney & Williams, 2008;
Van Dyne, Jehn, & Cummings, 2002; Wang & Netemeyer, 2004). This is in line with the
notion of adapting selling (i.e. salespersons alter their sales approaches based on the nature of
the customer to whom they are selling) (Sujan, Weitz, & Sujan, 1988).
However, there is a consensus in the literature that individual creativity is affected by
the interaction of personal and organizational factors (Amabile et al., 1996; Shalley &
Gilson, 2004). The shared meaning of these organizational factors across individuals
constitutes the organizations’ climate for creativity, i.e. the manifestation of practices and
patterns of behavior rooted in the assumptions, meaning, and beliefs that make up the
organizational culture (Amabile et al., 1996; West & Richter, 2008). We adopt the term
‘creative climate’ from Amabile’s research (Amabile et al., 1996) to define how a firm’s
culture manifests itself in the creative output from its employees. Organizations with a
high creative climate tend to support workplace creativity, providing a context conducive
to creativity; the opposite is true for organizations with a low creative climate.
Accumulated research findings consistently suggest that an organizational climate that
is supportive and stimulating is positively associated with individual creativity, and that a
non-supportive or controlling organizational climate is negatively associated with
creativity (Amabile & Conti, 1999; Amabile et al., 1996; Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Zhou, 2003).
Substantial empirical investigation has been reported regarding the management
practices that firms employ for the increase of their sales force productivity and
effectiveness (Ganesan, Weitz, & George, 1996; Sujan et al., 1988; Williams & Plouffe,
2007; Zoltners et al., 2008). Limited research, however, has been directed toward the
management practices that are being used by organizations supporting creativity although
prior research in the context of sales management has acknowledged that social
mechanisms (i.e. the development of organizational norms and culture) may be used as a
control mechanism to improve sales force productivity (Ganesan et al., 1996).
Thus, the purpose of this research is to spark interest in the importance that firms, with
working environments supporting creativity, place on practices for the management of
their sales force. Our research design focuses on several vital human resource management
practices, namely (1) selection and placement, (2) training and development,
(3) performance appraisal, and (4) pay and bonus systems.
The paper proceeds as follows. The first section reviews the literature in organizational
creativity and sales force management practices, followed by development of hypotheses.
The second section explains the chosen methodology and describes the results. The paper
ends with a discussion of the implications and limitations of the study.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Amabile’s model for assessing the organizational climate for creativity
There are two main theoretical models that have guided the area of organizational
creativity: those of Amabile (1988, 1996) and Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993).
Both models acknowledge the importance given to social and contextual influences for
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 61

employee creativity. However, in the present study we focus on Amabile’s componential

theory of creativity and innovation (Amabile, 1988, 1996) which offers a detailed and
specific conceptual model from which a corresponding and useful questionnaire to assess
the work environment for creativity was derived (Amabile et al., 1996).
The heart of Amabile’s componential theory of creativity conceptualizes the
organizational work environment as having three basic components: (1) organizational
support for creativity, (2) management practices, and (3) resources. Organizational support
describes an organization’s basic orientation toward creativity, as well as its support for
creativity and innovation. Management practices include the management at all levels of the
organization, but most importantly the level of individual departments and projects.
Supervisory encouragement and work-group support are two examples of relevant
managerial behavior. Resources are related to everything that an organization has to support
creativity at work. According to Amabile, the higher the concurrent levels of these three
aspects of the organizational environment, the more the creativity and innovation in
organizations.
Based on her componential theory of creativity, Amabile developed a scale to assess
the work environment for creativity: the KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity
(Amabile et al., 1996). KEYS focus on individuals’ perceptions of relevant organizational
dimensions and their influence on creativity, and the scale has been cited as being among
the most useful for assessing these organizational dimensions (Mathisen & Einarsen,
2004). The KEYS research tool is composed of 78 items organized under 10 subscales that
reflect the key dimensions of Amabile et al.’s (1996) conceptual framework. These are
composed of six stimulant subscales (1 – organizational encouragement; 2 – supervisory
encouragement; 3 – workgroup supports; 4 – sufficient resources; 5 – challenging work;
and 6 – freedom) whose dimensions positively relate to creativity and two obstacles
subscales (1 – organizational impediments, and 2 – work load pressure) whose
dimensions negatively relate to creativity. The remaining two subscales assess two
criterion variables referring to broader work outcomes (creativity and productivity)
(Amabile et al., 1996; Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). In the present study we focus on the
stimulant scales.

2.2 Sales force management practices in organizations

Sales force management refers to functional activities focusing on the maximization of
resource productivity within the firm’s sales department, that is activities that are more
related to the daily operations of the department. Although such functional activities may
relate to a firm’s general sales strategy, they are distinct in the sense that firms employ
many sales channels besides the sales force to reach their customers (Ingram, 2004; Spiro,
Rich, & Stanton, 2008).
A review of relevant sales and marketing literature uncovered numerous studies that
have specifically addressed practices, procedures, and tools involved in the (1) selection
and placement, (2) training, (3) performance appraisal, and (4) pay and bonus systems for
the sales force (Dubinsky, 1996; Farrell & Hakstian, 2001; Ganesan et al., 1996; Sujan
et al., 1988; Williams & Plouffe, 2007).
Selection and placement refers to the process and characteristics by which salesperson
are selected and placed in sales positions. Training refers to strategies and techniques used
to ensure that the sales force is prepared to serve its customers and prospects. Performance
appraisal refers to practices and techniques used to measure/assess the performance of
62 L.A. Zampetakis

salesperson. Pay and bonus systems refer to remuneration schemes and plans for
rewarding the sales force.
A great deal of prior research has discussed the importance of thinking strategically
about human resources (Beugelsdijk, 2008; Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Wang &
Zang, 2005) and this may be particularly important when investigating the relationship
between organizational climate and sales force management practices. The sales function
is affected by the rapidly changing and highly complex business environments with
organizations having to adapt at fast rates (Geiger & Guenzi, 2009).
The practices used to select, train, appraise, and reward salesperson all need to be
systematically linked together so that salesperson know what is expected of them and
when and how. Stated differently, organizational climate should be considered as
inextricably bound to sales force management practices. Therefore, it is reasonable to
assume that firms with different climate should place different importance in sales
personnel selection, training, appraisal, and reward decisions.

3. Hypotheses development
Till date, no relationships between climate for creativity and sales force management
practices have been established; however, a few meaningful relationships can be explored.
An important component of the sales force management is the selection of the
appropriate individuals to assume sales positions (Dubinsky, Anderson, & Mehta, 1999;
Ganesan et al., 1996). Of equal importance is the placing of an individual in a position
where his or her personal characteristics, work skills and abilities match the job’s requisite
qualifications (Dubinsky et al., 1999). In firms with a high creative climate, it is plausible
that selection devices can be used to try and select salespersons who are more likely to be
creative or who have higher innate creative ability. Furthermore, firms may develop job
descriptions where creativity is required for the job. When salesperson are given a reason
to be creative through job requirements, it is likely that they will try novel approaches to
their work. These practices are more often applied if the selection and placement of
salesperson is considered important. Therefore, we offer the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Organizations high in creative climate will tend to place greater
importance on the selection and placement practices of their sales force
compared to organizations with a less creative climate.
Training of the sales force is considered as a fundamental requirement for sales success
(Dubinsky et al., 1999) and it should be viewed as an investment rather than as an expense.
Offering training opportunities that can increase individuals’ knowledge base or their
creativity and relevant skills should help salespersons to try to be more creative in their
work (Sujan et al., 1988). We expect firms with a climate supportive to creativity to place
greater importance on the training of their sales force by using several procedures such as
specific orientation training programs, regular evaluation of training programs, and
evaluations on training results and outcomes. More formally, we propose that:
Hypothesis 2: Organizations high in creative climate will tend to place greater
importance on the training of their sales force compared to organizations
with a less creative climate.
While selection, placement, and training of the sales force are all important, organiza-
tions also may want to put systems in place to track their salesperson’s performance so as to
be able to appraise and ultimately reward them appropriately (Babakus, Cravens, Grant,
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 63

Ingram, & LaForge, 1996; Dubinsky et al., 1999). For firms the evaluation of the
performance of the sales personnel is critical with multiple indicators of performance being
applied; however, previous research evidence suggests that the evaluation process in most
firms is a relatively unsophisticated and unsystematic process (Morris, Davis, Allen, Avila,
& Chapman, 1991), implying that top management provides only general guidelines for
performance evaluation. We expect firms with a climate supportive to creativity to place
greater importance on the performance evaluation of their sales force not only in terms of
outcome performance (i.e. increase in sales volume and market share) but also in terms of
behavioral performance (i.e. salesperson efforts to collect information and acquire product
knowledge), and maintain formal procedures and evaluation forms, tailored-made criteria
for performance appraisal, and regular performance appraisal activities. More formally,
we propose that:
Hypothesis 3: Organizations high in creative climate will tend to place greater
importance on the performance evaluation of their sales force compared
to organizations with a less creative climate.
Finally, the sales management literature suggests that compensation systems span a
spectrum from straight salary or ‘fixed’ to straight commission or ‘incentive-based’ (e.g.
George & Weitz, 1989). The majority of the firms use hybrid systems that provide both a
base salary and some form of commission or bonus as an incentive (Slater & Olson, 2000).
In any case, rewards and incentives indicate to salespersons what kind of performance is
desired by the management and are thus valuable means of communicating corporate
values and goals to individual employees. Firms that value creativity will clearly show to
their sale force that creative behavior is acceptable. This implies the design of very careful
and flexible pay and bonus systems, that is great emphasis in the pay and bonus systems
compared to organizations with less support to creativity. More formally, we propose that:
Hypothesis 4: Organizations high in creative climate will tend to place greater
importance on pay and bonus systems of their sales force compared to
organizations with a less creative climate.

4. Methodology
4.1 Sample and procedures
Our basic research approach is a cross-sectional survey of respondents from a sample on
the databases of membership lists of the Hellenic Management Association. Members of
this society are managing directors, marketing, sales, human resource managers,
accountant managers, etc. In order to address the potential for common method bias in the
measures used, we adopted the following procedure to collect the data.
First, 840 personalized requests to participate in the study were emailed to a random
sample from the national list consisting of managing directors, with full contact details.
There was no monetary incentive to complete the study. However, a summary of the
findings was offered as an incentive to participate. Email messages explained the purpose of
the survey, as a study on sales forces management practices. The email was accompanied
by a short questionnaire requesting the assessment of the firm’s total performance.
Furthermore, we asked the managing director to provide information about the managers
who were responsible for the sales functions of the firm. We obtained complete and usable
data from 175 managing directors (response rate: 20.6%). Data collection took place during
September – November 2009.
64 L.A. Zampetakis

In the second stage, a questionnaire was emailed to the sales manager at each firm.
A cover letter accompanied the questionnaire. It explained the purpose of the study, the
importance of respondent participation, and time frame within which to return the
questionnaire. Further, respondents were assured that their responses would be held
confidential. The questionnaire included items for the assessment of the firm’s climate for
creativity and the importance placed in sales force management practices. The initial
emailing was followed by a second emailing two weeks later. The survey was completed
about 11 weeks after the initial mailing, yielding 168 completed questionnaires. The
response rate in the present study is within acceptable range (168/850 ¼ 19.76%)
(Cycyota & Harrison, 2006).
The sample consisted of 75% males with mean age 42 years (SD ¼ 7.3). Almost 75%
of the respondents had a bachelor’s or master’s degree. Average tenure in years was 8.8
(SD ¼ 7.3). The respondents in the study were involved in industrial products (17%),
industrial services (23%), consumer products (55%), and consumer services (5%). Firms
employed 230 employees on average, while the mean (standard deviation) of the
percentage of salesperson to total number of employees was 16.0% (18.0%).

4.2 Measurement of theoretical constructs

All the constructs included in analysis were assessed with self-report measures based on
multi-item scales whose psychometric properties are well established. Because partici-
pants were Greek-speaking, all the scales used were first translated into Greek by two
translators, who compared their versions until agreeing on the most correct translation, and
then back-translated into English by a bilingual, native English-speaking translator,
following the procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). The few discrepancies between
the original English version and the back-translated version resulted in adjustment in the
Greek translation based on direct discussion between the translators.
The specific measures used in the analysis, along with sample items of the relevant
constructs, are outlined.

4.2.1 Organizational creativity

Based on Amabile’s (1996) conceptual framework, we used five subscales from KEYS:
Assessing the climate for creativity (Amabile et al., 1996) to assess the work environment
for creativity. A total organizational creativity score was derived by taking the sum of the
five stimulant scales when z-scored. Responses to all items of the five subscales were made
on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ sometimes, 3 ¼ often, 4 ¼ always).
We used 12 items to assess the ‘organizational encouragement’ scale, that is the extend
to which the firm encourages creativity through the fair, constructive judgment of ideas,
reward and recognition for creative work, mechanisms for developing new ideas, an active
flow of ideas, and a shared vision of what the firm is trying to do. Sample item: ‘People are
encouraged to solve problems creatively in this organization’. Cronbach’s reliability
coefficient for ‘organizational encouragement’ was 0.89.
We used six items to assess the ‘supervisory encouragement’ scale, that is the extend
to which supervisors (the person to whom sales managers report most of their work) serve as
good work model, set goals appropriately, support the work group, value individual
contributions, and shows confidence. Sample item: ‘My supervisor serves as a good work
model”. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for “supervisory encouragement’ was 0.90.
Eight items were used for the assessment of the ‘workgroup supports’ subscale, that is
the extend to which work groups are diversely skilled in which people communicate well,
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 65

are open to new ideas, constructively challenge each other’s work, trust and help each
other, and feel committed to the work they are doing. Sample item: ‘There is free and open
communication within my group’. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for ‘workgroup
supports’ was 0.83.
We used six items to assess the ‘sufficient resources’ subscale, that is the extend to
which appropriate resources, including funds, materials, facilities, and information, are
provided to employees. Sample item: ‘Generally, I can get the resources I need for my
work’. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for ‘sufficient resources’ was 0.83.
Finally, we used six items to assess the ‘challenging work’ subscale, that is a sense of
having to work hard on challenging tasks and important projects. Sample item: ‘I feel
challenged by the work I am currently doing’. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for
‘challenging work’ was 0.83.
To overcome problems associated with the fit of the confirmatory factor analyses
(CFAs) of the KEYS scale reported in previous research (Amabile et al., 1996), in the
present study we used the exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) approach
(Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009; Marsh et al., 2009). Specifically, Amabile et al. reported
that the analysis of fit measures for the KEYS scale revealed a ‘moderate fit to the data’
(Amabile et al., 1996, p. 1167). In their results, Amabile et al. (1996) reported that
component fit measures showed that all items loaded onto their corresponding scales, but
many items were found to load on more than one scale.
Recently, it has been argued that model specifications based on a simple structure CFA
(i.e. not including cross-factor loadings) is unnecessarily restrictive and that cross-factor
loadings are sometimes a necessary element of model testing (Asparouhov & Muthén,
2009; Marsh et al., 2009). In the ESEM approach, in addition to or instead of a CFA
measurement model, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) measurement model with
rotations can be used in a structural equation model.
We assessed total organizational creativity by taking the sum of the subscales when
z-scored.

4.2.2 Sales force management practices

We used four items based on the sales management and marketing literature (e.g. Ganesan
et al., 1996; Sujan et al., 1988; Williams & Plouffe, 2007) to assess the importance of the
sales force management practices. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance that
the firm they are working for places on each practice on a five-point scale (1 – not
important to 5 – extremely important). The four items were (1) selection and placement,
(2) training, (3) performance appraisal, and (4) pay and bonus systems for the sales force.

4.2.3 Firm’s productivity

We used six items from the KEYS: Assessing the climate for creativity (Amabile et al.,
1996) to assess an efficient, effective, and productive organization. Sample item: ‘My area
of this organization is effective’. Cronbach’s reliability coefficient for the four items was
0.83.

4.2.4 Firm’s total performance

Firm’s total performance was measured through the mail survey with four items that asked
sales managers to evaluate their firms’ performance relative to their principal competitors
for the past three years on (1) sales growth rate, (2) market share, and (3) cash flow
(Zampetakis, Vekini, & Moustakis, 2011). All items were anchored on a five-point Likert
66 L.A. Zampetakis

scale ranging from ‘very low’ (1) to ‘very high’ (5). The average of these four items was
used as the firms’ total performance (Cronbach’s reliability coefficient was 0.84).

4.3 Analytical strategy

To check for the presence of common method variance, we used Harman’s one-factor (or
single-factor) test based on Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff’s (2003)
suggestions.
All analyses were performed using the mean and weighted least squares means and
variance adjusted and the Mplus (version 5.2) software (Muthén & Muthén, 2007; www.
statmodel.com). To assess model fit, we employed several statistics (Shook, Ketchen,
Hult, & Kacmar, 2004): (1) root mean square error approximation (RMSEA): 0¼ an exact
fit, , 0.05 ¼ a close fit, 0.05– 0.08 ¼ a fair fit, 0.08– 0.10 ¼ a mediocre fit, and
. 0.10 ¼ a poor fit; (2) comparative fit index (CFI): best if above 0.95; and (3) Tucker –
Lewis index (TLI): best if above 0.95.
We eliminated all medium responses having an average score on total organizational
creativity within a half standard deviation above and below the mean. This procedure of
eliminating all ‘medium’ responses reduced the sample size from 168 to 106 (51 firms
belonged to the high creativity group). We used independent samples t-tests to determine
if there were significant differences in the importance of the sales force management
practices in the two groups. This method compares the means of two groups to determine
how much the mean of one group differs from the other group’s mean.

5. Results
5.1 Common method bias
We tested for the potential occurrence of common method variance by employing a
Harman’s one-factor test. Specifically, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis
containing all 51 items. The results reveal that there are 11 factors that account for 72% of
the total variance. Common method effects are not a likely contaminant of the results
observed in this investigation, since the first factor did not account for the majority of the
variance (only 19.5%).
Results of our ESEM analyses indicated that the theoretical constructs used
from the KEYS scale had an acceptable fit: x 2 (76, N ¼ 168) ¼ 130.75, p ¼ 0.001,
RMSEA ¼ 0.065, CFI ¼ 0.956, TLI ¼ 0.977.

5.2 Descriptive statistics

In Table 1, we present means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations. Correlations in
Table 1 indicate that total organizational creativity is correlated positively with
organizational productivity (r ¼ 0.54, p , 0.001) and with total organizational
performance (r ¼ 0.15, p , 0.01). Furthermore, organizational productivity relates to
total organizational performance (r ¼ 0.39, p , 0.001).

5.3 Hypothesis testing

An analysis of Table 2 indicates that in support of our hypothesis the low–high organizational
creativity groups had statistical significant differences in terms of the importance that firms
are placing on the: selection and placement of the salespersons [t (99.91) ¼ 5.40,
p , 0.001)]; performance appraisal of the salespersons [t (99.41) ¼ 4.08, p , 0.001)]; pay
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for total sample.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Organizational encouragement 0.00 0.95 –
2. Supervisory encouragement 2 0.03 0.94 0.52*** –
3. Workgroup supports 0.00 0.94 0.20* 0.39*** –
4. Sufficient resources 0.00 0.90 2 0.09 2 0.09 20.13 –
5. Challenging work 0.00 0.84 0.43*** 0.43*** 0.05 0.05 –
6. Organizational productivity 2 0.01 0.89 0.34*** 0.38*** 0.11 0.05 0.51*** –
7. Total organizational creativity 2 0.06 2.73 0.75*** 0.54*** 0.82*** 0.69*** 0.13* 0.54*** –
8. Total organizational performance 3.41 0.80 0.05 0.16* 0.09 0.11 0.02 0.39*** 0.15** –
Note: N ¼ 168.
Journal of Strategic Marketing

*p , 0.05 (two-tailed), **p , 0.01 (two-tailed), ***p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

67
 68

Table 2. Independent t-tests and effects sizes (Cohen’s d) for the differences between high and low creativity groups.

Low organizational High organiz-

creativity group ational creativity
(n ¼ 55) group (n ¼ 51)
M SD M SD Independent t-test Cohen’s d
1. Selection and placement of the salespersons 3.31 1.28 4.47 0.90 t (99.91) ¼ 5.40*** 1.05
2. Performance appraisal of the salespersons 3.44 1.33 4.37 0.99 t (99.41) ¼ 4.08*** 0.79
3. Pay and bonus systems of the salespersons 2.67 1.36 3.94 1.36 t (104) ¼ 4.79*** 0.94
L.A. Zampetakis

4. Training of the salespersons 2.82 1.04 4.29 1.11 t (104) ¼ 25.96*** 1.17
5. Organizational productivity 20.47 0.70 0.57 0.60 t (104) ¼ 28.14*** 1.6
6. Total organizational performance 3.29 0.78 3.65 0.72 t (104) ¼ 22.42** 0.47

**p , 0.01 (two-tailed), *** p , 0.001 (two-tailed).

 Journal of Strategic Marketing 69

and bonus systems of the salespersons [t (104) ¼ 4.79 p , 0.001)]; and training of the
salespersons [t (104) ¼ 5.96, p , 0.001)]. Furthermore, we found statistically significant
differences in the two groups in terms of organizational productivity and organizational
performance with the high organizational creativity group having higher scores.
We used the GPower (version 3.01) statistical program (Erdfelder, Faul, Lang, &
Buchner, 2007) to estimate the effect sizes (Cohen’s d) of the aforementioned independent
t-test. Results are presented in Table 2.
According to Cohen’s widely accepted suggestions (Cohen, 1988), all effect sizes are
moderate to large. We performed sensitivity analysis with GPower in order to estimate the
effect size that the study was able to detect with a power (1 2 b) 80% and a ¼ 0.05.
Results indicate that the minimum effect size to which independent t-tests were
sufficiently sensitive is 0.55, which is still a moderate to large effect.
Finally, we examined differences in the two groups in terms of the total organizational
performance items. We found statistically significant differences in market share
[t (104) ¼ 1.38, p , 0.05)] and cash flow increase [t (104) ¼ 2.05, p , 0.05)] but not in
the sales growth rate [t (104) ¼ 1.377, p ¼ 0.235)].

6. Discussion, limitations, and implications

The present study empirically explored the relationship between organizational creativity and
sales force management practices. Correlation analyses and independent t-tests were
conducted with sales manager data from Greek firms. Specifically, our results provide
evidence that firms with working environments that support creativity place greater impor-
tance in the implementation of general sales force management practices, namely (1) selection
and placement, (2) training, (3) performance appraisal, and (4) pay and bonus systems.
In addition, we found moderate to large effect sizes of the mean differences observed on the
aforementioned variables between firms high and low in creative climate. The exploratory and
cross-sectional research presented herein, despite limitations, can provide some insights
regarding the relation between organizational creativity and the management of sales force.
Before turning to the broader implications of this study, certain limitations should be
noted. To begin, while adequate for the nature of the study, the sampling procedure did not
ensure a representative sample of Greek sales forces. Generalizing the results, therefore,
should be done with caution.
Furthermore, while the instruments used in this study appear to have been adequate,
they provided only self-report data; and because of the cross-sectional design employed
here, casualty cannot be established from this study. Tracking back the path of cause and
effect with a correlational study is always a dubious activity. How we can be sure that
organizational creativity is responsible for the importance of sales force management
practices, particularly when our measures are given through self-reports? It could be
argued that sales force management practices contribute to organizational creativity.
Finally, in this research we have not examined specific management practices; we just
examined the importance of generic management practices. These limitations represent, in
any case, opportunities to advance in our efforts to better understand the relation between
organizational creativity and the management of the sales force.
Even bearing these caveats in mind, we believe that the results obtained in this study
have some noteworthy implications. To begin, sales force management has not received
much attention in studies of organizational creativity. Nonetheless, there is reason to
suspect that such functional activities may relate to creative climate, as firms seek to adapt
their actions to an envisioned future. And, in fact, the results obtained in this study
70 L.A. Zampetakis

regarding the relationship between sales force management practices and organizational
creativity provide some support for this proposition.
We have found that firms with a working environment that supports creativity consider
important the selection and placement, training, performance appraisal, and payment of
the salespersons. These firms seem to have realized that creativity may be an inherent
requirement of the sales job and use appropriate sales force management practices that
provide signals to the salespersons that creative activity is required, recognized, and
rewarded. These firms perform better in terms of organizational productivity, total
organizational performance, market share, and cash flow increase compared to firms with
less supportive environments toward creativity.
Finally, we found no statistically significant differences between high and low
organizational creativity groups in terms of sales growth rate increase. It is plausible that
firms with high levels of organizational creativity use sales force management practices in
ways that provide more flexibility and quick responses to changing environmental
conditions or customer demands and allocate their scarce sales resources (i.e. people and
selling effort) toward more customized solutions of customer problems, thus increasing
their market share and cash flow.
The present exploratory study is, to our knowledge, the first study to directly consider
the relationship between sales force management and organizational creativity. Although
creativity in the workplace is still an emerging research field, we believe that this study
presents a potential new avenue for research and contribution to the sales management
literature.

References
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw &
L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123– 167).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to social psychology of creativity. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Conti, H. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during
downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630– 640.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154– 1184.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438.
Babakus, E., Cravens, D. W., Grant, K., Ingram, T. N., & LaForge, R. W. (1996). Investigating the
relationships among sales, management control, sales territory design, salesperson performance,
and sales organization effectiveness. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13,
345– 363.
Basadur, M., Taggar, S., & Pringle, P. (1999). Improving the measurement of divergent thinking
attitudes in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 75 – 111.
Beugelsdijk, S. (2008). Strategic human resource practices and product innovation. Organization
Studies, 29, 821– 847.
Bonney, F. L., & Williams, B. C. (2008). From products to solutions: The role of salesperson
opportunity recognition. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 1032– 1052.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In C. Triandis
& J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross cultural psychology (pp. 398– 444). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Cycyota, C. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). What (not) to expect when surveying executives: A meta-
analysis of top manager response rates and techniques over time. Organizational Research
Methods, 9, 133– 160.
 Journal of Strategic Marketing 71

Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the
research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53, 3 – 15.
Dubinsky, A. J. (1996). Some assumptions about the effectiveness of sales training. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16, 67 – 76.
Dubinsky, A. J., Anderson, R. E., & Mehta, R. (1999). Selection, training, and performance
evaluation of sales managers: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business-to-Business
Marketing, 6, 37 –69.
Erdfelder, E., Faul, F., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 32, 175– 191.
Farrell, S., & Hakstian, R. A. (2001). Improving sales force performance: A meta-analytic
investigation of the effectiveness and utility of personnel selection procedures and training
interventions. Psychology and Marketing, 18, 281–316.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 2, 290– 309.
Ganesan, S., Weitz, B. A., & George, J. (1996). Hiring and promotion policies in sales force
management: Some antecedents and consequences. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 13, 15 – 26.
Geiger, S., & Guenzi, P. (2009). The sales function in the twenty-first century: Where are we and
where do we go from here? European Journal of Marketing, 43, 873– 889.
George, J., & Weitz, B. A. (1989, February). Salesforce compensation: An empirical investigation of
factors related to use of salary versus incentive compensation. Journal of Marketing Research,
26(1), 1 –14.
Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why be creative: A review of the practical outcomes associated with creativity
at the individual, group, and organizational levels. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational creativity (pp. 303– 322). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 171– 188.
Im, S., & Workman, J. P. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in
high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68, 114– 132.
Ingram, T. N. (2004). Future themes in sales and sales management: Complexity, collaboration, and
accountability. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12, 18 – 28.
Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Ludtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., &
Trautweind, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA:
Applications to students’ evaluations of university teachings. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 439– 476.
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments assessing creative and innovative
environments within organizations. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119– 140.
Morris, M. H., Davis, D. L., Allen, J. W., Avila, R. A., & Chapman, J. (1991). Assessing the
relationship among performance measures, managerial practices, and satisfaction when
evaluating the salesforce: A replication and extension. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 11, 25 – 35.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607– 634.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases
in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879– 903.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual
factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33 – 53.
Shook, C. L., Ketchen, D. J. J., Hult, G. T. M., & Kacmar, K. M. (2004). An assessment of the use of
structural equation models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal,
25, 397– 404.
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The influence of sales force
management. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 813– 829.
72 L.A. Zampetakis

Spiro, R. L., Rich, G. A., & Stanton, W. J. (2008). Management of a sales force (12th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. A., & Nenonen, S. (2009). The changing role of sales: Viewing
sales as a strategic, cross-functional process. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 890– 906.
Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Sujan, M. (1988, August). Increasing sales productivity by getting
salespeople to work smarter. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 8, 9 – 19.
Van Dyne, L., Jehn, K. A., & Cummings, A. (2002). Differential effects of strain on two forms of
work performance: Individual employee sales and creativity. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 23, 57 –74.
Wang, G., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2004). Salesperson creative performance: Conceptualization,
measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Business Research, 57, 805– 812.
Wang, Z., & Zang, Z. (2005). Strategic human resources, innovation and entrepreneurship fit:
A cross-regional comparative model. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 544– 559.
West, M. A., & Richter, A. W. (2008). Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at work.
In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 211– 236).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Williams, B. C., & Plouffe, C. R. (2007). Assessing the evolution of sales knowledge: A 20-year
content analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 408–419.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293– 321.
Zampetakis, L. A., Vekini, M., & Moustakis, V. (2011). Entrepreneurial orientation, access to
financial resources, and product performance in the Greek commercial TV industry. The Service
Industries Journal, 31, 897–910.
Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor
close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 413– 422.
Zoltners, A. A., Sinha, P., & Lorimer, S. E. (2008). Sales force effectiveness: A framework
for researchers and practitioners. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 28,
115– 131.
Copyright of Journal of Strategic Marketing is the property of Routledge and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.