Applicant perceptions of the gender effect on the selling process and on targeting prospective customers: does gender matter?
Pinar, Musa ; Hardin, J. Russell ; Eser, Zeliha 等
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, as more women have joined the sales force, women
have proven to be as successful as men in the traditionally
male-dominated field of selling; yet they still face some barriers in
gaining entry to some selling jobs (Fugate et al., 1988; "Pink
Ghetto in Sales," 1988). Some barriers are caused by sales
managers' beliefs in gender stereotypes (Kanuk, 1978). Several
prior studies (Comer and Jolson, 1991; Russ and McNeily, 1988; Swan and
Futrell, 1978; Swan, Rink, Kiser and Martin, 1984) of women in sales
suggest that stereotypes of women in selling still exist from both
managers and potential customers. A study by Comer and Jolson (1991)
showed that, according to sales managers' perceptions, the more a
saleswoman's behavior resembles the negative gender stereotype, the
less effective her selling performance. The current study examines two
fundamental issues: (1) whether negative (or positive) gender
stereotypes are predictors of, or even associated with, selling
performance, and (2) whether gender similarity/dissimilarity between
salespersons and potential buyers impacts sales efforts during the
selling process and in targeting efforts in finding new customers. These
issues have apparently not been addressed by prior research. The current
study could have important managerial implications for recruiting and
developing effective sales force training programs and strategies.
Prior literature concerning gender effects in the sales field have
focused on two main areas: one area of research has examined the effect
of gender on interview processes and recruiting outcomes; and another
area of research examined the impact of buyer-seller gender on sales
performance. Several studies have investigated gender bias during the
employment interview and attempted to separate the effects of applicant
gender and recruiter gender on recruiters' evaluations (Arvey and
Faley, 1988; Powell, 1987). These prior studies produced mixed results
concerning the effect of the similarity of applicant gender and
recruiter gender on interview outcomes. For example, a study by Graves
and Powell (1988) found that applicant gender had no significant effect
on the interview outcome; while the results of another study by Graves
and Powell (1995) showed that female recruiters saw male applicants as
more similar to themselves and more qualified than female applicants.
Other research that examined the gender effect in selling has
covered such issues as female managers' leadership style (Comer et
al., 1995; Yammarino et al., 1997); sex-role identity (Jolson and Comer,
1992); stereotypical behavior and perceptions of gender stereotyping
(Comer and Jolson, 1991; Russ and McNeilly, 1988); and professional
status (Gable and Reed, 1987). Concerning the gender effect on sales
performance, past studies (Crosby, Evan, and Cowles, 1990; Smith, 1998)
suggest that gender similarity between sales persons and customers is
positively related to the quality of the sales person/customer
relationship and sales performance. Crosby et al. (1990) found that
same-gender relationships seem to be associated with greater
relationship investment, more open communication, and greater trust and
satisfaction within relationships. These findings support conventional
wisdom that exchange relationships are easier to develop with similar
others (Churchill et al., 1997). An earlier study by Churchill et al.,
(1975) found a significant relationship between visible similarity
(i.e., gender, race, age, and nationality) and sales performance.
However, other studies (Crosby et al., 1990; Weitz, 1981) suggest that
the relationship that exists between dyadic similarity and salesperson
performance is weak at best.
An empirical study by Dwyer, Orlando, Shephard (1998) showed that
female salespeople were just as effective as male salespeople, and
gender similarity was not a significant factor in sales performance. In
addition, their study found that male-female and female-male mismatched
dyads significantly outperformed gender-matched dyads. In fact, their
results showed that women selling to men (a mismatch) performed higher
than the matching female-female dyads, and also exceeded the performance
of male-male and male-female dyads. In addressing the question of
"Does difference matter," Jones, Moore, Stanaland and Wyatt
(1998) found that consumers appear to be more accepting of salespeople
who are "dissimilar" to themselves, which contradicts some
assertions in the popular press (Lucas 1996). They concluded that
"difference" made no difference.
The literature concerning the gender effect on sales performance
provides mixed results. As some studies (Churchill et al., 1997, 1975;
Crosby et al., 1990; Smith, 1998) suggest benefits of matching
buyer-seller genders, others studies (Dwyer et al., 1998; Jones et al.,
1998) contradict these benefits. This study is aimed at investigating
applicant perceptions (business students) regarding gender effects on
different stages of the selling process and selling efforts. Unlike
prior studies in the selling field where the focus was on the gender
effect on recruiting processes and/or sales performance, this paper
examines the gender effect at each step of the selling process as well
as the gender effect on targeting of potential buyers. This study has
two sets of specific objectives. One set of objectives deals with
whether applicants perceive that they will: (a) confidently introduce
themselves to male versus female buyers; (b) make presentations to male
versus female buyers; (c) answer questions effectively from male versus
female buyers; (d) overcome objections from male versus female buyers,
and (e) engage in a trial close and successfully close the sale with
male versus female buyers. The second set of objectives deal with
whether the applicant: (a) would more strongly target male versus female
potential buyers; (b) would be more successful selling to male versus
female buyers, (c) would more strongly prefer selling to males versus
females; and (d) would prefer to focus more of their efforts on males
versus females when finding new buyers.
Selling is a process with successive stages, which includes meeting
the prospect, making a presentation, answering questions, overcoming
objections, attempting a trial close, and closing the sale (Futrell,
2006; Manning and Reece, 1995). Understanding the gender effect on each
stage of selling process could provide insight into the nature of gender
effects in the sales field. Also, before the actual selling process, it
would be beneficial to understand the gender effect on targeting and
selling efforts of salespeople when they are selecting potential buyers.
In order to examine applicant perceptions of gender effects on the
various stages of the selling process and targeting efforts, comparisons
will be made for: all respondents, for male respondents, for female
respondents, and for male versus female respondents. This paper is
important because it appears to be the first paper to address gender
effects on selling and targeting from the applicant's point of
view. Understanding applicants' perceptions of these issues could
assist sales organizations in recruiting for sales positions and in
training the sales force.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Several theories or paradigms that have been developed or proposed
to explain the gender effect on sales performance. These theories or
paradigms, which have served as a foundation for empirical gender
studies in the selling field, are Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982;
Tajfel and Turner, 1986); Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1982,
1985); and the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Byrne and
Neuman, 1992; Graves and Powell, 1995). The similarity-attraction
paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Byrne and Neuman, 1992; Graves and Powell, 1995)
suggests that individuals tend to be attracted to, or seek membership
with, those (demographically) similar to themselves, leading to
perceived attraction. Similarity is the degree to which members of a
group are alike in terms of personal (or demographic) characteristics or
other attributes (Byrne and Neuman, 1992; Smith, 1998). Thus, similarity
constitutes an important basis of interpersonal attraction and of social
integration and cohesion (Baron and Pfeffer, 1994). Byrne and Neuman
(1992) state that gender similarity seems to have a very strong
influence on perceived similarity and interpersonal attraction. This
theory implies that there would be a perceived attraction between a
salesperson and a buyer, based on perceived similarity.
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1986)
advocates that belonging to a group creates a psychological state that
confers social identity or a collective representation of self-identity
and behavior. Under this theory, an individual's self-identity
formation is partly a function of group membership and demographic
similarity will have positive effects on performance by increasing
interpersonal attraction and increasing cognitive biases. Tajfel (1982)
states that based on social identity theory an individual's
self-identity formation is partly a function of group membership. People
in groups share experiences and attitudes, they like each other and
understanding increases, and this interaction reinforces or ratifies
one's own self image (McNeilly and Russ, 2000). In essence, social
identity theory predicts that demographic similarity will have positive
effects on performance by increasing interpersonal attraction and
increasing cognitive biases (Linville and Jones 1980), which could lead
to more open communication and decreased interpersonal tension. Social
identity theory also provides some insight for the unexpected outcomes
of some previous gender studies (Graves and Powell, 1995; Hardin et al.,
2002).
An important and integral aspect of social identity theory involves
self-categorization. Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1982, 1985)
suggests that individuals take socially defined categories into
account when making evaluations about others, where those
characteristics that are similar to self would likely be considered as
positive and vice-versa. McNeilly and Russ (2000) point out that since
demographic characteristics such as age and gender are observable and
accessible, they are useful for self-categorization. This aspect of
self-categorization theory indicates that social categories such as
gender, age, and race (Messick and Mackie, 1989), can cause one to
perceive oneself as similar to other members of a category or group and
can trigger stereotyping of the out-group. Self-categorization also
takes place during the formation of dyadic relationships (Benkhoff,
1997), where similarity facilitates communication, the development of
greater trust, and satisfaction within relationships (Kanter, 1977;
Smith, 1998).
These theories suggest that individuals maintain a positive
self-identity by seeking to maximize inter-group distinctiveness and
perceive out-group members as being less attractive (Jackson et al.,
1992; Kramer, 1991). The implication of these theories is that
salespeople will feel more confident during sales presentations and will
primarily target prospects that are similar to themselves (i.e., same
gender). Based on the above theories, Figure 1 presents a framework to
investigate the potential effects of applicant gender (as a future
salesperson) and buyer gender on each step of selling process and on
targeting efforts. According to the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm
(Byrne, 1971; Byrne and Neuman, 1992; Graves and Powell, 1995), Social
Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1986), and
Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1982, 1985), there should be a
gender effect (or bias) on each selling step and on targeting
(prospecting) efforts. These theories suggest that applicants, as
potential salespeople, would perceive that they would be more successful
at each step of the selling process (introducing themselves, giving
presentations, answering questions, overcoming objections, engaging in a
trial closing, and successfully closing the sale) with same gender
buyers (gender matched buyer-seller) than with different gender buyers
(gender mismatched buyer-seller). Based on these relationships,
presented in Figure 1, and the first set of study objectives stated
above, the following hypotheses are developed for each step of selling
process:
H1: There will be a gender effect where (H1a) male applicants
perceive they will more confidently introduce themselves to male buyers,
and (H1b) female applicants perceive they will more confidently
introduce themselves to female buyer.
H2: There will be a gender effect where (H2a) male applicants
perceive they will more confidently make presentations to male buyers,
and (H2b) female applicants perceive they will more confidently make
presentations to female buyers.
H3: There will be a gender effect where (H3a) male applicants
perceive they will be more confident in answering questions from male
buyers, and (H3b) female applicants perceive they will be more confident
in answering questions from female buyers.
H4: There will be a gender effect where (H4a) male applicants
perceive they will be more confident in overcoming objections for not
buying from male buyers, and (H4b) female applicants perceive they will
be more confident in overcoming objections for not buying from female
buyers.
H5: There will be a gender effect where (H5a) male applicants
perceive they will be more confident in attempting a trial close with
male buyers, and (H5b) female applicants perceive they will be more
confident in attempting a trial close with female buyers.
H6: There will be a gender effect where (H6a) male applicants
perceive they will be more successful in closing the sale with male
buyers, and (H6b) female applicants perceive they will be more
successful in closing the sale with female buyers.
Similarly, based on the relationships presented in Figure 1 and the
second set of study objectives, the following hypotheses are developed
for targeting prospective buyers and selling efforts:
H7: There will be a gender effect where (H7a) male applicants
perceive they will more strongly attempt to sell to male buyers, and
(H7b) female applicants perceive they will more strongly attempt to sell
to female buyers.
H8: There will be a gender effect where (H8a) male applicants
perceive they will be more successful in selling to male buyers, and
(H8b) female applicants perceive they will be more successful in selling
to female buyers.
H9: There will be a gender effect where (H9a) male applicants
perceive they will prefer selling to male buyers, and (H9b) female
applicants perceive they will prefer selling to female buyers.
H10: There will be a gender effect where (H10a) male applicants
perceive they will prefer to focus their efforts on male buyers, and
(H10b) female applicants perceive they will prefer to focus their
efforts on female buyers.
METHODOLOGY
In order to accomplish the study objectives, a research instrument
(questionnaire) was developed, which was adapted from Hardin et al.
(2002) and further modified and improved to meet the objectives of this
study. Specifically, the survey instrument included a number of
questions concerning both sets of study objectives to examine student
(as potential salespeople) perceptions of the gender effect during the
selling process and targeting and selling efforts. For the first set of
objectives, students were told that the selling process consisted of
several steps. They were instructed to assume that they were giving a
sales presentation and were asked several questions concerning their
perceptions of how successful they thought they would be in dealing with
male versus female potential buyers in each step of the selling process.
For the second set of objectives, the instrument asked students whether
they would more likely target to sell to, and be more successful in
selling to, male versus female buyers, and finally, they were asked to
indicate their preference for selling to, and focusing their efforts on,
prospecting for male versus female buyers.
The research instrument included scale statements covering both
sets of the study objectives. The instrument was submitted to several
academicians with significant experience in the sales field and in scale
development. After the instrument was improved with their suggestions,
it was pre-tested with several students. The pretest provided very
useful input for improving and clarifying the wording of the questions
and establishing the face validity of the constructs (Churchill, 1979;
Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005; Narver and Slater, 1990). The questions
were measured on a semantic differential type of scale ranging from -5
to 5, where a score of -5=definitely males, a score of 0=equally likely,
and a score of 5=definitely females. This scale offered some benefits.
One benefit was that there was one scale item for each objective to
cover both males and females. This reduced the number of scale items and
made the instrument shorter. The second benefit is that each item
somewhat forced the respondents to indicate their perceptions of the
gender effect in a clear way. On the actual research instrument, the
negative signs were omitted in order to eliminate any potential
confusion and/or association with negative numbers. The instrument also
included several demographic variables, such as gender, age, year in
school (class) and major.
The above described instrument was administered to business
students in the colleges of business at five universities in the United
States; three were state universities while the other two were private
universities. Before conducting the study, marketing professors at
several U.S. universities were contacted and asked if they would be
interested in participating in the study by administering the instrument
in their classes. The professors who agreed to participate in the study
were asked to randomly select two of their classes and administer the
instrument to all the students in those classes. Special effort was made
to select general business classes so that the study would include
students with different majors as well as different classification
levels. These classes were considered as clusters, and every student in
each selected class completed the instrument. This type of sampling is
called one-stage cluster sampling (Churchill and Iacobucci, 2005). This
process produced 385 useable responses. The five universities, located
in various parts of the United States, should offer a fairly good
representation of business students across the United States. Since
business (especially marketing) students are more likely to seek sales
jobs, the responses from these students should provide useful
information to help accomplish the research objectives of this study.
Respondent Profiles
The demographic profiles of the respondents show that 51.4% of the
respondents are male and 48.6% are female, with an average age of 23.7
years. A distribution of student classification indicates that 1.0% are
freshmen, 5.5% are sophomores, 28.2% are juniors, 39.9% are seniors,
24.3% are graduate students, and 1.0% are other. In terms of majors,
27.9% are majoring in marketing, 24.8% in management, 13.1% in
accounting, 11.0% in finance, 1.6% in economics, 1.0% in computer
science, 1.8% in management information systems, and 18.2% in other.
While the survey was intended to include students from different
business majors by targeting general business courses, the distribution
of majors shows that marketing and management majors are the largest
groups of respondents followed by accounting. These majors seem to be
the most popular majors at many U.S. business schools.
RESULTS
The main objective of this study was to investigate applicant
perceptions of the gender effect on selling performance during each
step/stage of the selling process and targeting efforts for prospective
buyers. In order to test whether there is a gender effect during any of
the selling stages, a one sample t-test was conducted where the test
value = 0. Separate analyses were conducted for all students, male
students and female students, and the results are presented in Table 1.
Since the scale used in the study ranged from "-5=definitely
males" to "5=definitely females" with "0=equally
likely," the sign of the mean shows the direction of any gender
effect, and the t-significance would indicate if the gender effect was
significant. Based on the results of the one sample test for all
responses, students perceive that they would be more successful in
making presentations to female buyers (mean of .41, p < .01), and
answering questions from female buyers (mean of .30, p < .01). They
also feel they would be somewhat more successful in overcoming
objections from female buyers (mean of .19, p < .10). The results
also indicate that students feel they would be equally successful with
male and female buyers in introducing themselves, engaging in a trial
close, and in closing the sale. The results suggest the existence of a
perceived gender effect (bias) during some stages of selling process
where students feel they would be more successful with female buyers
than male buyers.
The mean scores of selling efforts in Table 1 show that students,
if hired as sales persons, would prefer to attempt to sell to female
buyers (mean of .43, p < .01) and believe they would be more
successful selling to female buyers (mean of. 37, p < .01). These
findings suggest the existence of a gender effect in targeting and
selling to female buyers. In terms of targeting, the respondents
indicated they would prefer selling to female buyers (mean of .34, p
< .01). Also, when finding new buyers, the respondents would prefer
to focus their efforts on female buyers (mean of .34, p < .01),
assuming an equal number of male and female buyers are available. These
findings further support the existence of a significant gender effect in
favor of female buyers concerning the selling efforts/outcome of
potential applicants.
In addition to a gender effect for all students (potential
salespeople), separate analyses were conducted to examine whether there
were gender effects for male students and female students, and the
results are presented in Table 1. The results for male students indicate
that the mean scores are not significant for any of the selling steps.
These findings suggest that male students feel they will be equally
successful in their selling efforts during each step of the selling
process to both male and female buyers. These results do not support
hypotheses H1a, H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a, and H6a. In Table 1, similar
analyses for female students shows that females seem to feel they would
be more successful in making presentations to female buyers (mean of
.77, p < .01) and answering questions from female buyers (mean of
.68, p < .01). Since the mean scores for the other selling steps are
not significant, these results suggest that female students feel equally
successful in their selling efforts during the overall selling process
to both male and female buyers. Concerning female applicants, hypotheses
H2b and H3b are supported, but H1b, H4b, H5b, and H6a are not supported.
Similarly, male and female students' perceptions of targeting
efforts were analyzed and presented in Table 1. The positive signs of
the means to all the responses to targeting questions suggest that male
students would prefer to attempt to sell to female buyers (mean of .61),
would be more successful in selling to female buyers (mean of .72),
would prefer selling to female buyers (mean of .81), and would prefer to
focus more of their efforts on female buyers (mean of .49). All of these
results are significant at the p < .01 level. These findings reveal a
significant gender effect for male students in their targeting efforts
in favor of female buyers. However, the results are opposite of the
predictions of the above theories and hypotheses; therefore, H7a, H8a,
H9a, and H10a are not supported.
The results of a similar analysis for female students are also
included in Table 1. Since none of the means for targeting questions are
significant, female students don't appear to have any preference
for; targeting male versus female buyers. These findings show that there
is no gender effect (from female students) on targeting efforts for
potential customers. As a result, hypotheses H7b, H8b, H9b, and H10b are
not supported.
Comparison of Male versus Female Applicants
Also, the study compared male vs. female student perceptions of the
gender effect during each step of the selling process, and the results
are presented in Table 2. Comparisons of the mean scores for the selling
steps suggest that there is no significant difference between male and
female students in: confidently introducing themselves to either male or
female buyers (p > .05); overcoming objections from male or female
buyers (p > .05); engaging in a trial closing (p > .05); and
successfully closing the sale (p > .05). However, the study did
reveal a significant difference between male and female applicants for
two steps of the selling process. The positive signs of the means for
making a presentation indicate that both male and female students feel
they would be more successful in giving sales presentations to female
buyers. It appears that female students also feel they will be more
successful (mean of .77) than male students (mean of .09) in making
sales presentations to female buyers (p < .01). The results also
indicate a significant difference between male and female students in
answering questions from buyers (p < .01). A negative sign of the
mean for male students indicates that feel they would be more successful
in answering questions from male buyers, whereas the positive sign of
the mean for female students indicate that they feel they would be more
successful in answering questions from female buyers.
Concerning targeting efforts, the mean scores of .61 for male
students and .23 for female students suggest that both genders would
more strongly attempt (or target) to sell to female buyers. Male
students seem to have a stronger preference to target female buyers than
female students, where the difference is somewhat significant (p <
.10). In terms of selling success, male students perceive they will be
more successful in selling to female buyers (mean of .72), whereas
female students perceive they will be more successful in selling to male
buyers (-.03), where the means are significantly different (p < .01).
In addition, the results illustrate a significant difference
between the selling preferences of male and female students (p <
.01). If they had a choice, male students would prefer selling to female
buyers (mean of .81), while female students would prefer to focus their
efforts on finding new male buyers (mean of -.13). When finding a new
buyer, both male and female students prefer to focus most of their
effort on prospecting female buyers; however, the difference was not
significant (p > .10). The results regarding selling efforts
contradict the predictions of the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm (Byrne,
1971; Byrne & Neuman, 1992; Graves & Powell, 1995). In fact,
these findings are the opposite of the predictions of the theories used
in this and prior studies. As suggested by Dwyer et al. (1998), it
appears that gender similarity would not provide any advantage, and may
even reduce sales opportunities.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Unlike prior gender studies in the sales field where gender effects
were investigated from the recruiters' point of view or from the
point of view of salespeople, this study examined gender effects on each
step of the selling process and targeting potential customers from the
applicant's perception (business student) as a potential
salesperson. The results of the study indicate that the entire sample of
students feel they would be more successful with female buyers than male
buyers in making sales presentations, answering questions, and
overcoming objections. Regarding the other steps of the selling process,
students feel they would be equally successful in their selling efforts
to both male and female buyers. Concerning targeting and prospecting
efforts, the study found that all students would more strongly prefer to
target female buyers, would be more successful selling to and prefer
selling to female buyers and would prefer to focus more of their selling
efforts on female buyer. These results indicate a significant gender
effect (bias) for all students in favor of preferring female buyers in
their selling process and targeting efforts. These findings imply that
both male and female students may need to be trained in selling and
targeting male buyers. This could be important in increasing sales.
The results by gender indicate that male students believe they will
be equally successful with both male and female buyers at each stage of
the selling process. Unlike the predictions of the Similarity-Attraction
Paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Byrne and Neuman, 1992; Graves and Powell, 1995),
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel and Turner, 1986);
Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1982, 1985), these findings suggest
a gender effect for male students during the selling process. These
findings contradict the results of some previous studies (Crosby et al.,
1990; Smith, 1998; Churchill et al, 1997; 1975), which suggested that
male students should be more successful during each step of the selling
process to same gender (male) buyers. However, the results are
consistent with the findings of some other studies (Dwyer et al., 1998;
Jones et al., 1998) that show that gender similarity does not seem to be
a factor for sales performance. The implication is that male students
would not need special training to be successful in selling to male or
female buyers; rather they might be trained in improving their overall
selling effectiveness.
However, the current study did find the existence of a gender
effect for female students during two steps of the selling process. It
seems that female students feel they would be more successful with
female buyers than male buyer in making sales presentations and
answering questions. These findings are consistent with the predictions
of the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Byrne and Neuman,
1992; Graves and Powel, 1995), Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982;
Tajfel and Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1982,
1985). These theories suggest that individuals tend to be attracted to,
or seek membership in, groups that are (demographically) similar to
themselves, indicating that there would be a perceived attraction
between a salesperson and a buyer based on perceived similarity. On the
other hand, the study found no gender effect for female students during
the other steps of the selling process. The results, therefore, provide
limited support for these theories. The findings for both male and
female students suggests that in selling to male and female buyers, male
students would be successful during all stages of the sales process,
while female students would be successful during certain stages. These
findings could be helpful for managers in their recruiting and training
efforts.
The comparisons of male students vs. female students found
significant differences between the two genders for only two stages of
the selling process. The results show that both male and female students
feel they would be more successful in giving sales presentation to
female buyers. However, female students have a stronger preference for
female buyers. The study also found a significant gender difference
between male and female students regarding answering buyer questions.
Specifically, while male students feel they would be more successful in
answering questions from male buyers versus female buyers, female
students feel they would be more successful answering questions from
female buyers than male buyers. There were no significant differences
between male and female students for other steps of the selling process.
Some of these findings are consistent with the predictions of the above
gender effect theories, others are not. Also, some of these findings are
consistent with the findings of Crosby et al. (1990), Dwyer et al.
(1998), and Jones et al. (1998), while others are not consistent with
their findings. The results of the current study show that the gender
effect on each step of selling process does not follow any predictable,
consistent pattern. As reported by Dwyer et al. (1998) and Jones et al.
(1998), female salespeople seem to be just as effective as male
salespeople, and gender similarity does not appear to be a significant
factor in sales performance. In fact, contrary to the Access and
Legitimacy Paradigm (Thomas and Ely, 1996), these results suggest that
companies should probably not try to match seller gender with buyer
gender.
Regarding targeting efforts, comparisons of male students vs.
female students found significant differences between the two genders.
The results show that both male and female students would more strongly
attempt to sell to female buyers, with male students having a stronger
preference. In addition, male students feel they would be more
successful, and would prefer, selling to female buyers, whereas female
students feel just the opposite. Again, these findings are not
consistent with the predictions of the theories and prior research
(Crosby et al., 1990; Dwyer et al., 1998; Jones et al., 1998).
Managerial Implications
This study examined applicant (business student) perceptions of
gender effects during the selling process and targeting efforts.
Understanding student perceptions of gender effects at each stage of the
selling process and targeting efforts, rather than the sales outcome,
provided a different perspective on gender effects. The results of the
current study could have several managerial implications for companies
in recruiting their sales force and in designing sales training
programs. The first managerial implication deals with sales efforts
during the selling process. As both male and female students believe
they would be successful with both male and female buyers during all but
a few steps of the selling process, matching the gender of the target
market with the gender of a salesperson should not be a major factor in
the recruiting/hiring decision. Companies may not gain any advantage by
matching the gender of salespeople with buyer gender as suggested by
previous studies (Crosby et al., 1990; Smith, 1998; Churchill et al,
1997; 1975) and by the Access and Legitimacy Paradigm (Thomas and Ely,
1996). To the contrary, as suggested by Dwyer et al. (1998) and Jones et
al. (1998), companies could attract and recruit applicants from both
genders resulting in hiring the best qualified persons for sales jobs.
This could have a positive impact on the firm's sales force
productivity and sales performance.
The second managerial implication is that companies could identify
potential gender effects for each stage of the sales process, rather
than considering the gender effect on overall sales outcomes as
suggested by prior research (Dwyer et al., 1998, Jones et al., 1998).
This would allow companies to have a better understanding of the gender
effect on certain steps of selling process so that companies can design
special training programs to deal with specific problem areas. For
example, the results show a significant gender effect for female
students who seem to feel more comfortable with female buyers in making
sales presentations and answering questions. Once this is identified,
companies could design training programs to improve female students
success in dealing with male buyers.
The third managerial implication deals with targeting and selling
success with potential buyers. It seems that students prefer to target
female buyers, feel they would be more successful in selling to female
buyers and prefer to sell to female buyers. The reason for such
preference was not within scope of this study, but the implication is
that companies might focus their prospecting efforts on potential female
buyers in order to increase sales. Alternatively, they might have to
train new recruits to improve their effectiveness in prospecting and
selling to male buyers. These findings imply that companies may not gain
any advantage by matching the gender of salespeople with buyer gender as
suggested by the Access and Legitimacy Paradigm (Thomas and Ely, 1996).
To the contrary, both male and female students appear to prefer to
target to and sell to female buyers.
Finally, the results of this study show that, unlike the
predictions of the Similarity-Attraction Paradigm (Byrne, 1971; Byrne
& Neuman, 1992; Graves & Powell, 1995), Social Identity Theory
(Tajfel, 1972, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), and Self-Categorization
Theory (Turner, 1982, 1985), there is no consistent gender effect where
same gender relationships would be more effective and preferable during
the targeting and selling process. In order to create a successful sale
force, companies must train their new recruits on targeting and
successfully completing sales to male buyers. This is the same for
targeting and for all stages of the selling process. These findings
could be very valuable for companies in developing training programs for
the specific problem areas identified.
REFERENCES
Arvey, R.D., & R.A. Faley (1988). Fairness in selecting
employees (SecondEdition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Baron, J.N. & J. Pfeffer (1994). The social psychology of
organizations and inequality. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57,
(September), 190-209.
Benkhoff, B. (1997). A test of the HRM model: Good for employers
and employees. Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 44-60.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic
Press.
Byrne, D. & J.H. Neuman (1992). The implications of attraction
research for organizational issues. In K. Kelley (Ed.) Issues, Theory,
and Research in Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 29-70).
New York: Elsevier.
Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16(February), 64-73.
Churchill, G.A., Collins, R.H. & W.A. Strang (1975). Should
retail salespersons be similar to their customers? Journal of Retailing,
51(Fall), 29-42.
Churchill, G.A., Jr., Ford, N.M & O.C. Walker, Jr. (1997).
Sales Force Management (Fifth Edition). Chicago: Irwin.
Churchill, G.A. Jr., & D. Iacobucci (2005). Marketing Research:
Methodological Foundations (Ninth Edition). United States: Thomson /
South-Western.
Comer, L.B. & M.A. Jolson (1991). Perceptions of gender
stereotypic behavior: An exploratory study of women in selling. Journal
of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(Winter), 43-59.
Comer, L.B., Jolson, M.A., Dubinsky, A.J., & F.J. Yammarino
(1995). When the sales manager is a woman: An exploration into the
relationship between salespeople's gender and their responses to
leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
15(Fall), 17-32.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R. & D. Cowles (1990). Relationship
quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective.
Journal of Marketing, 54(July), 68-81.
Dwyer, S., Orlando, R. & C.D. Shepherd (1998). An exploratory
study of gender and age matching in the salesperson-prospective customer
dyad: Testing similarity-performance predictions. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 4(Fall), 55-69.
Fugate D.L., Decker, P.J. Decker & J.J. Brewer (1988). Women in
professional selling: A human resource management perspective. Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8 (November), 33-41.
Futrell, C.M. (2006). Fundamentals of Selling (Ninth Edition). New
York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Gable, M. & B.J. Reed (1987). The current status of women in
professional selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 7(May), 33-39.
Graves, L.M. & G.N. Powell (1988). An investigation of sex
discrimination in recruiters' evaluations of actual applicants.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 20-29.
Graves, L.M. & G.N. Powell (1995). The effect of sex similarity
on recruiters' evaluations of actual applicants: A test of the
similarity attraction paradigm. Personnel Psychology, 48 (Spring),
85-98.
Hardin, R.J., Reding, K.F. & M.H. Stocks (2002). The effect of
gender on the recruitment of entry-level accountants. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 14(2), 251-266.
Jackson, S.E., Stone, V.K. & E.B. Alvarez (1992). Socialization
amidst diversity: The impact of demographics on work team old timers and
newcomers. Research on Organizational Behavior, 15, 45-109.
Jolson, M.A. & L.B. Comer (1992). Predicting the effectiveness
of industrial saleswomen. Industrial Marketing Management, 21(February),
69-76.
Jones, E., Moore, J., Stanaland, A. & R. Wyatt (1998).
Salesperson race and gender and the access and legitimacy paradigm: Does
difference make a difference. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 18(4), 7188.
Kanter, R. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life:
Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of
Sociology, 82, 965-990.
Kanuk, L. (1978). Women in industrial selling. Journal of
Marketing, 42(January), 87-91.
Kramer, R.M. (1991). Intergroup relations and organizational
dilemmas: The role of categorization process. Research on Organizational
Behavior, 13, 191-228.
Linville, P. & E. Jones (1980), Polarized appraisal of outgroup
members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
Lucas, A. (1996). Race matters. Sales & Marketing Management,
148(September), 50-62.
Manning, G.L. & B.L. Reece (1995). Selling Today. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McNeilly, K. M. & F. Russ (2000). Does relational demography
matter in a personnel selling? Journal of Personnel Selling & Sales
Management, 4(Fall), 279-288.
Messick, D.M. & D.M. Mackie (1989). Intergroup relations.
Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 45-81.
Narver, J. & S.F. Slater (1990). The effects of a market
orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing,
54(October), 20-35.
Pink Ghetto' in Sales for Women. (1988). Sales and Marketing
Management, 140(July), 80.
Powell, G.N. (1987). The effects of sex and gender on recruitment.
Academy of Management Review, 12, 731-743.
Russ, F.A. & K.M. McNeilly (1988). Has sex stereotyping
disappeared? A study of perceptions of women and men in sales. Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8(November), 43-54.
Smith, J.B. (1998). Buyer-seller relationships: Similarity,
relationship management, and quality. Psychology and Marketing,
15(January), 3-21.
Swan, J.E. & C.M. Futrell (1978). Men versus women in
industrial sales: A performance gap. Industrial Marketing Management,
7(December), 369-373.
Swan, J.E., Rink, D.R., Kiser, G.E. & W.S. Martin (1984).
Industrial buyer image of the saleswomen. Journal of Marketing,
48(Winter), 110-116.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. & J.C. Turner (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, D.A. & R.J. Ely (1996). Making differences matter: A
new paradigm managing diversity. Harvard Business Review,
74(September-October), 79-91.
Turner, J.C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social
group. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, 12, 15-40.
Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A
social-cognitive theory of group behavior. Advances in Group Processes:
Theory and Research, 2, 77-121.
Yammarino, F.J., Dubinsky, A.J., Comer, L.B., & M.A. Jolson
(1997). Women and transformational and contingent reward leadership: A
multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective. Academy of Management Journal,
40(February), 205-222.
Weitz, B. A. (1981). Effectiveness in sales interactions: A
contingency framework. Journal of Marketing, 45(Winter), 85-103.
Musa Pinar, Valparaiso University
J. Russell Hardin, University of South Alabama
Zeliha Eser, Baskent University
Table 1: Students' Perceptions of Gender Effect in Selling Process and
Targeting Potential Customers
Selling Process All respondents
Mean St. p
Dev. value
Confidently introducing self to potential -0.1 2.11 0.679
buyers
Making the sales presentation 0.41 2 0
Answering any questions the client might have 0.3 1.79 0
Overcoming various objections to buying 0.19 1.98 0.07
Engaging in a trial closing 0 1.97 0.834
Successfully closing the sale 0.02 2.03 0.859
Targeting Potential Customers Mean St. p
Dev. value
If hired as a salesperson, most strongly 0.43 2.15 0
attempt to sell to men or women
As a sales person, most successful selling to 0.37 2.59 0
men or women
If you had a choice, you would most strongly 0.34 2.55 0.01
prefer selling to?
When finding new buyers, you would
prefer to focus most of your efforts on males 0.34 2.02 0
vs. females, assuming an equal number of
buyers are available?
Selling Process Male respondents
Mean St. p
Dev. value
Confidently introducing self to potential -0.11 2.04 0.44
buyers
Making the sales presentation 0.09 1.82 0.504
Answering any questions the client might have -0.04 1.76 0.776
Overcoming various objections to buying 0.26 1.95 0.06
Engaging in a trial closing 0.13 2.01 0.354
Successfully closing the sale 0.09 2.06 0.55
Targeting Potential Customers Mean St. p
Dev. value
If hired as a salesperson, most strongly 0.61 1.3 0
attempt to sell to men or women
As a sales person, most successful selling to 0.72 2.41 0
men or women
If you had a choice, you would most strongly 0.81 2.52 0
prefer selling to?
When finding new buyers, you would
prefer to focus most of your efforts on males 0.49 2.07 0
vs. females, assuming an equal number of
buyers are available?
Selling Process Female respondents
Mean St. p
Dev. value
Confidently introducing self to potential 0.01 2.18 0.946
buyers
Making the sales presentation 0.77 2.11 0
Answering any questions the client might have 0.68 1.75 0
Overcoming various objections to buying 0.13 2.01 0.398
Engaging in a trial closing -0.16 1.9 0.244
Successfully closing the sale -0.07 2 0.658
Targeting Potential Customers Mean St. p
Dev. value
If hired as a salesperson, most strongly 0.23 2.3 0.182
attempt to sell to men or women
As a sales person, most successful selling to -0.03 2.71 0.971
men or women
If you had a choice, you would most strongly -0.13 2.48 0.461
prefer selling to?
When finding new buyers, you would
prefer to focus most of your efforts on males 0.17 1.94 0.244
vs. females, assuming an equal number of
buyers are available?
Scale: Definitely Males -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Definitely Females
Table 2: Comparisons of Male vs. Female Applicant Perceptions of
Gender Effect in Selling Process and Targeting Potential Customers
Male Applicant
Selling Process
Mean St. Dev
Confidently introducing self to potential -0.11 2.04
buyers
Making the sales presentation 0.09 1.82
Answering any questions the client might -0.04 1.76
have
Overcoming various objections buying 0.26 1.95
Engaging in a trial closing 0.13 2.01
Successfully closing the sale 0.09 2.06
Targeting Potential Customers Mean St. Dev
If hired as a salesperson, most strongly 0.61 2
attempt to sell to man or women
As a sales person, most successful 0.72 2.41
selling to man or women
If you had a choice, you would most 0.81 2.52
strongly prefer selling to?
When finding new buyers, you would prefer
to focus
most of your efforts on males or females, 0.49 2.07
assuming an equal number of buyers are
available?
Female Applicant p value
Selling Process
Mean St. Dev.
Confidently introducing self to potential 0.01 2.18 0.569
buyers
Making the sales presentation 0.77 2.11 0.001
Answering any questions the client might 0.68 1.75 0
have
Overcoming various objections buying 0.13 2.01 0.501
Engaging in a trial closing -0.16 1.9 0.14
Successfully closing the sale -0.07 2 0.464
Targeting Potential Customers Mean St. Dev p value
If hired as a salesperson, most strongly 0.23 2.3 0.082
attempt to sell to man or women
As a sales person, most successful -0.03 2.71 0.004
selling to man or women
If you had a choice, you would most -0.13 2.48 0
strongly prefer selling to?
When finding new buyers, you would prefer
to focus
most of your efforts on males or females, 0.17 1.94 0.121
assuming an equal number of buyers are
available?
Scale: Definitely Males -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 Definitely Females
Figure 1: Effect of Salesperson and Buyer Gender on Selling Process
and Targeting Efforts Applicant/Salesperson
Male Female
Potential Buyer Male Gender Match: Gender Mismatch:
Perceived Perceived
Similarity Dissimilarity
Female Gender Mismatch: Gender Match:
Perceived Perceived
Dissimilarity Similarity
Steps in Selling Process
Introducing
Presentation
Answering questions
Overcoming objections
Attempting trial close
Closing the sale
Targeting effort
Attempting to sell
More successful in selling
Prefer to sell to
Prefer to focus efforts on
