5. Extraverted:
definition: tendency to be
sociable, assertive, expressiv
e and active.
Introverted
definition: tendency to focus
on internal thoughts and
experiences
LEVEL OF
EXTRAVERSION
6. Extraverted:
definition: tendency to be
sociable, assertive, expressiv
e and active.
Introverted
definition: tendency to focus
on internal thoughts and
experiences
Ambiverted
definition: one who falls into
midrange on the Introversion-
Extraversion (IE) scale
LEVEL OF
EXTRAVERSION
8. Why Sales?
• 1.46 million or 10% of employed adults in the US (2010)
work in sales (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013)
9. Why Sales?
• 1.46 million or 10% of employed adults in the US (2010) work in sales (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2013)
• Success of a sales organization dependent on the
performance of its sales force (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993)
10. Why Sales?
• 1.46 million or 10% of employed adults in the US (2010) work in sales (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2013)
• Success of a sales organization dependent on the performance of its sales
force (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993)
• Sales people turnover at rates estimated to be as high
as 2X the national average (Boles, Dudley, Onyemah, Rouziès & Weeks, 2012)
11. Why Sales?
• 1.46 million or 10% of employed adults in the US (2010) work in sales (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2013)
• Success of a sales organization dependent on the performance of its sales
force (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993)
• Sales people turnover at rates estimated to be as high as 2X the national
average (Boles, Dudley, Onyemah, Rouziès & Weeks, 2012)
• Turnover costs 200% of salary (Boles, Dudley, Onyemah, Rouziès & Weeks, 2012)
12. Why Sales?
• 1.46 million or 10% of employed adults in the US (2010) work in sales (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2013)
• Success of a sales organization dependent on the performance of its sales
force (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993)
• Sales people turnover at rates estimated to be as high as 2X the national
average (Boles, Dudley, Onyemah, Rouziès & Weeks, 2012)
• Turnover costs 200% of salary (Boles, Dudley, Onyemah, Rouziès & Weeks, 2012)
• Payoff for selecting successful salespersons is greater
than for other occupations (Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth, 1998)
13. Extraversion & Sales Performance
Extraversion related:
• training proficiency (.26)
(Barrick and Mount, 1991)
• supervisor ratings (.18) and sales
performance (.22)
(Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth, 1998)
• supervisor ratings (.28) and sales
performance (.26)
(Hough, 1992; Hough; Vinchur et al., 1998)
14. Extraversion & Sales Performance
Extraversion related:
• training proficiency (.26)
(Barrick and Mount, 1991)
• supervisor ratings (.18) and sales
performance (.22)
(Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth, 1998)
• supervisor ratings (.28) and sales
performance (.26)
(Hough, 1992; Hough; Vinchur et al., 1998)
Extraversion UNrelated:
• wholesale manufacturing sales
(Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993)
• business to business sales
(Stewart, 1996)
• health and fitness sales
(Furnham & Fudge, 2008)
• Extraversion and sales
performance only .07 (insignificant)
in 3 Meta-Analyses
(Barrick et al., 2001)
15. Extraversion & Sales Performance
Extraversion related:
• training proficiency (.26)
(Barrick and Mount, 1991)
• supervisor ratings (.18) and sales
performance (.22)
(Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth, 1998)
• supervisor ratings (.28) and sales
performance (.26)
(Hough, 1992; Hough; Vinchur et al., 1998)
Extraversion Unrelated:
• wholesale manufacturing sales
(Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993)
• business to business sales
(Stewart, 1996)
• health and fitness sales
(Furnham & Fudge, 2008)
• Extraversion and sales
performance only .07 (insignificant)
in 3 Meta-Analyses
(Barrick et al., 2001)
In Sum:
Extraversion-Sales Performance
Relationship is inconclusive.
16. Ambiversion & Sales Performance
(Grant, 2013)
Ambiverted salespeople
performed better introverted
or extraverted salespeople.
$4000 more in revenue.
17. Sales Mgrs. & Sales Performance
• Numerous research supports sales managers
influence on sales people performance
(Bragg, 1988; Davis et al., 2000; Deeter-Schmelz et al.,2012; Jaworski &
Kohli 1991; Kohli 1985; Podsakoff, 1982; Rich, 1997; Sujan et al.,1988;)
18. Do sales people perform better under
introverted, extraverted or ambiverted
managers?
19. Hypotheses
Hypothesis #1: - Ambiverted salespeople will
perform better than extraverted or introverted
salespeople. (replication of Grant, 2013)
Hypothesis #2: - Salespeople led by ambiverted
managers will have higher sales revenue than
teams led by either introverted or extraverted
sales managers.
23. Study Overview
Managers and
Salespeople take
personality survey
Prior to Study
3 MONTHS
End Of
Fiscal Quarter
Managers and
Salespeople sign up
for and consent to
study
Supervisor collects
and gives revenue
data to researcher
Start of
Fiscal
Quarter
24. 20-Item Personality Scale
10 minute requirement
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-
effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203.
26. Data Analysis
Hierarchical Multiple Regression to
• test replication of sales person ambiversion-performance
relationship (Hypothesis 1)
• test manager ambiversion-sales performance relationship
(Hypothesis 2)
Results
• Add predictor at each step
• Significant change in R2 between steps indicates significant
contribution of the variable added
27. Implications
PRACTICAL
• Sales manager selection
• Sales manager and sales
person performance
management
• Sales team assembly
and selection
ACADEMIC
• Replication of the Grant
(2013) study
• Adds to extraversion-job
performance literature
• Adds to general
personality literature
29. References
• Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta- analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
• Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating
effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715-722.
• Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know
and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 9, 9–30.
• Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance and in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
• Boles, J. S., Dudley, G. W., Onyemah, V., Rouziès, D., & Weeks, W. A. (2012). Sales force turnover and retention: A research agenda.
Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(1), 131-140
• Bragg, Arthur. 1988. "Are Good Salespeople Born or Made?" Sales & MarketingManagement140 (September): 74-78.
• Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Managers' upward influence tactic strategies: the role of manager personality and supervisor leadership
style. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(2), 197–214.
• Cohen, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (1979). Ambiversion: Characteristics of Midrange Responders on the Introversion-Extraversion Continuum.
Journal Of Personality Assessment, 43(5), 514.
• Cravens, D. W, Ingram, T. N., LaForge, R. W, & Young, C. E. (1993). Behavior-based and outcome-based salesforce control systems.
Journal of Marketing, 57, 47-59.
• Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Goebel, D. J. (2002). Understanding sales manager effectiveness: Linking attributes to sales force
values. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(7), 617-626.
• Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Tan, H. H. (2000). The trusted general manager and business unit performance: Empirical evidence of a
competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 563-576.
• Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.
Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
• Furnham, A., & Fudge, C. (2008). The five factor model of personality and sales performance. Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 11-16.
30. References (continued)
• Grant, A. M. 2013. Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Forthcoming in Psychological Science
• Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big-Five" personality variable- construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-
155.
• Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of person- ality constructs and
the effect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581-595.
• Jaworski, Bernard and Ajay K. Kohli. 1991. "Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeople's Performanc eand
Satisfaction.Journal of Marketing Research 28 (May): 190-201.
• Kohli, Ajay K. 1985. "Some Unexplored Supervisory Behaviors and Their Influence on Salespeople's Role Clarity, Specific Self-
Esteem, JobSatisfaction, andMotivation.Journal of Marketing Research 22 (November): 424-433.
• Podsakoff, Philip M. 1982. "Determinants of a Supervisor's Use of Rewards and Punishments." Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance29(January): 58-82.
• Rich, G. A. (1997). The sales manager as a role model: Effects on trust, job satisfaction, and performance of salespeople. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 319-328.
• Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 619-627.
• Sujan, Harish, Barton A. Weitz, and Mita Sujan. 1988. "Increasing Sales Productivity by Getting Salespeople to Work Smarter." Journalof
PersonalSellingandSalesManagement8(August): 9-19.
• Tett, R. T , Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 703-742.
• U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013). Employment situation summary. Retrieved from website:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
• Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., & Switzer III, F. S., and Roth, PL (1998). A meta-analytical view of job performance for
salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 586-597.
Hinweis der Redaktion
The corrected estimate of the overall relation between personality and job performance obtained in the present study was .24.
The corrected estimate of the overall relation between personality and job performance obtained in the present study was .24.
The corrected estimate of the overall relation between personality and job performance obtained in the present study was .24.
The corrected estimate of the overall relation between personality and job performance obtained in the present study was .24.
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
Extraverts performed better individually than on a team (Barry & Stewart, 1997)If a consensual structure of personality is ever to emerge, the five-factor model, or ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1990), is probably it. The Big Five model has provided a unifying taxonomy for the study of personality, which is essential to the communication and accumulation of empirical findings (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor structure has generalized across cultures and rating formats (self, peer, observer, and stranger ratings), and there is considerable evidence that the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992) p.7: In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. -- Highlighted feb 24, 2013 (Barrick and Mount, 1991)Potency validity coefficients were .28 and .26 for ratings and sales, respectively, whereas Achievement coefficients were .25 and .41. These results shed further light on the Big Five results. It appears that Potency would be classified as a component of Extraversion in the Big Five because it applies to assertiveness and the intensity of interpersonal interactions. The higher validity coefficients for Potency and lower coefficients of .12 and .15 for Affiliation (also a part of Extraversion) suggest that Potency may be the more important part of Extraversion that is associated with higher sales performance. Page 2The factors comprising the Big Five are: (1) extraversion, which represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, expressive, and active; (2) agreeableness, representing the tendency to be likable, nurturing, adaptable, and cooperative; (3) conscientiousness, referring to the traits of achievement, organization, task-focus, and dependability; (4) emotional stability, which is the tendency to be secure, emotionally adjusted and calm; and (5) openness to experience, which is the disposition to be imaginative, artistic, non-conforming, and autonomous.
Extraverts performed better individually than on a team (Barry & Stewart, 1997)Potency (Hough sub-dimension of extraversion) predicted supervisor ratings (.28) and sales performance (.26) (Hough, 1992; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, and Roth, 1998)If a consensual structure of personality is ever to emerge, the five-factor model, or ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1990), is probably it. The Big Five model has provided a unifying taxonomy for the study of personality, which is essential to the communication and accumulation of empirical findings (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor structure has generalized across cultures and rating formats (self, peer, observer, and stranger ratings), and there is considerable evidence that the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992) p.7: In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. -- Highlighted feb 24, 2013 (Barrick and Mount, 1991)Potency validity coefficients were .28 and .26 for ratings and sales, respectively, whereas Achievement coefficients were .25 and .41. These results shed further light on the Big Five results. It appears that Potency would be classified as a component of Extraversion in the Big Five because it applies to assertiveness and the intensity of interpersonal interactions. The higher validity coefficients for Potency and lower coefficients of .12 and .15 for Affiliation (also a part of Extraversion) suggest that Potency may be the more important part of Extraversion that is associated with higher sales performance. Page 2The factors comprising the Big Five are: (1) extraversion, which represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, expressive, and active; (2) agreeableness, representing the tendency to be likable, nurturing, adaptable, and cooperative; (3) conscientiousness, referring to the traits of achievement, organization, task-focus, and dependability; (4) emotional stability, which is the tendency to be secure, emotionally adjusted and calm; and (5) openness to experience, which is the disposition to be imaginative, artistic, non-conforming, and autonomous.
Extraverts performed better individually than on a team (Barry & Stewart, 1997)If a consensual structure of personality is ever to emerge, the five-factor model, or ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1990), is probably it. The Big Five model has provided a unifying taxonomy for the study of personality, which is essential to the communication and accumulation of empirical findings (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor structure has generalized across cultures and rating formats (self, peer, observer, and stranger ratings), and there is considerable evidence that the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992) p.7: In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. -- Highlighted feb 24, 2013 (Barrick and Mount, 1991)Potency validity coefficients were .28 and .26 for ratings and sales, respectively, whereas Achievement coefficients were .25 and .41. These results shed further light on the Big Five results. It appears that Potency would be classified as a component of Extraversion in the Big Five because it applies to assertiveness and the intensity of interpersonal interactions. The higher validity coefficients for Potency and lower coefficients of .12 and .15 for Affiliation (also a part of Extraversion) suggest that Potency may be the more important part of Extraversion that is associated with higher sales performance. Page 2The factors comprising the Big Five are: (1) extraversion, which represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, expressive, and active; (2) agreeableness, representing the tendency to be likable, nurturing, adaptable, and cooperative; (3) conscientiousness, referring to the traits of achievement, organization, task-focus, and dependability; (4) emotional stability, which is the tendency to be secure, emotionally adjusted and calm; and (5) openness to experience, which is the disposition to be imaginative, artistic, non-conforming, and autonomous.
Extraverts performed better individually than on a team (Barry & Stewart, 1997)If a consensual structure of personality is ever to emerge, the five-factor model, or ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1990), is probably it. The Big Five model has provided a unifying taxonomy for the study of personality, which is essential to the communication and accumulation of empirical findings (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor structure has generalized across cultures and rating formats (self, peer, observer, and stranger ratings), and there is considerable evidence that the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992) p.7: In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. -- Highlighted feb 24, 2013 (Barrick and Mount, 1991)Potency validity coefficients were .28 and .26 for ratings and sales, respectively, whereas Achievement coefficients were .25 and .41. These results shed further light on the Big Five results. It appears that Potency would be classified as a component of Extraversion in the Big Five because it applies to assertiveness and the intensity of interpersonal interactions. The higher validity coefficients for Potency and lower coefficients of .12 and .15 for Affiliation (also a part of Extraversion) suggest that Potency may be the more important part of Extraversion that is associated with higher sales performance. Page 2The factors comprising the Big Five are: (1) extraversion, which represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, expressive, and active; (2) agreeableness, representing the tendency to be likable, nurturing, adaptable, and cooperative; (3) conscientiousness, referring to the traits of achievement, organization, task-focus, and dependability; (4) emotional stability, which is the tendency to be secure, emotionally adjusted and calm; and (5) openness to experience, which is the disposition to be imaginative, artistic, non-conforming, and autonomous.
Extraverts performed better individually than on a team (Barry & Stewart, 1997)If a consensual structure of personality is ever to emerge, the five-factor model, or ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1990), is probably it. The Big Five model has provided a unifying taxonomy for the study of personality, which is essential to the communication and accumulation of empirical findings (McCrae & John, 1992). The five-factor structure has generalized across cultures and rating formats (self, peer, observer, and stranger ratings), and there is considerable evidence that the Big Five are heritable and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1992) p.7: In contrast, Extraversion and Agreeableness are expected to correlate with job performance for two occupations, sales and management, because interpersonal dispositions are likely to be important determinants of success in those occupations. -- Highlighted feb 24, 2013 (Barrick and Mount, 1991)Potency validity coefficients were .28 and .26 for ratings and sales, respectively, whereas Achievement coefficients were .25 and .41. These results shed further light on the Big Five results. It appears that Potency would be classified as a component of Extraversion in the Big Five because it applies to assertiveness and the intensity of interpersonal interactions. The higher validity coefficients for Potency and lower coefficients of .12 and .15 for Affiliation (also a part of Extraversion) suggest that Potency may be the more important part of Extraversion that is associated with higher sales performance. Page 2The factors comprising the Big Five are: (1) extraversion, which represents the tendency to be sociable, assertive, expressive, and active; (2) agreeableness, representing the tendency to be likable, nurturing, adaptable, and cooperative; (3) conscientiousness, referring to the traits of achievement, organization, task-focus, and dependability; (4) emotional stability, which is the tendency to be secure, emotionally adjusted and calm; and (5) openness to experience, which is the disposition to be imaginative, artistic, non-conforming, and autonomous.
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
There are aspects of the sales job that make unique demands on an employee and may contribute to a pattern of validity coefficients different from other jobs. Most prominent of these demands are both the degree of autonomy (Churchill, Ford, & Walker, 1985) and the degree of rejection experienced by m any salespersons. Andrew J Vinchur, Jeffery S Schippmann, Fred S Switzer III, and Philip L RothThe success of a sales organization is highly dependent on the performance of its salesforce (Cravens, Ingram, LaForge, & Young, 1993).
To analyze the data, I will use hierarchical multiple regressions to determine the unique contribution of extraversion to job performance, as measured in dollar amounts of sales revenue, and to control for other personality variables. In Step 1, job performance will be the dependent variable and extraversion will be the independent variable. In step 2, extraversion2 will be added. In step 3, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness will be added. In step 4, conscientiousness2, openness2, neuroticism2 agreeableness2 will be added. The change in r2, or explained variance, between each step will be tested for significance using an F-test. A significant change from step 1 (extraversion), to step 2 (extraversion2) would indicate a curvilinear relationship exists. A significant change between step 1 or 2 and steps 3 and 4 will indicate a moderation of personality dimensions on job performance. If extraversion2 is a significant predictor, the change of r2 from step 1 to 2 is significant and the changes from step 2 to steps 3 or 4 are insignificant, then there is a curvilinear relationship without moderation by other personality factors and sales manager ambiversion does account for a significant amount of variance in job performance.
To analyze the data, I will use hierarchical multiple regressions to determine the unique contribution of extraversion to job performance, as measured in dollar amounts of sales revenue, and to control for other personality variables. In Step 1, job performance will be the dependent variable and extraversion will be the independent variable. In step 2, extraversion2 will be added. In step 3, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness will be added. In step 4, conscientiousness2, openness2, neuroticism2 agreeableness2 will be added. The change in r2, or explained variance, between each step will be tested for significance using an F-test. A significant change from step 1 (extraversion), to step 2 (extraversion2) would indicate a curvilinear relationship exists. A significant change between step 1 or 2 and steps 3 and 4 will indicate a moderation of personality dimensions on job performance. If extraversion2 is a significant predictor, the change of r2 from step 1 to 2 is significant and the changes from step 2 to steps 3 or 4 are insignificant, then there is a curvilinear relationship without moderation by other personality factors and sales manager ambiversion does account for a significant amount of variance in job performance.
To analyze the data, I will use hierarchical multiple regressions to determine the unique contribution of extraversion to job performance, as measured in dollar amounts of sales revenue, and to control for other personality variables. In Step 1, job performance will be the dependent variable and extraversion will be the independent variable. In step 2, extraversion2 will be added. In step 3, conscientiousness, openness, neuroticism, agreeableness will be added. In step 4, conscientiousness2, openness2, neuroticism2 agreeableness2 will be added. The change in r2, or explained variance, between each step will be tested for significance using an F-test. A significant change from step 1 (extraversion), to step 2 (extraversion2) would indicate a curvilinear relationship exists. A significant change between step 1 or 2 and steps 3 and 4 will indicate a moderation of personality dimensions on job performance. If extraversion2 is a significant predictor, the change of r2 from step 1 to 2 is significant and the changes from step 2 to steps 3 or 4 are insignificant, then there is a curvilinear relationship without moderation by other personality factors and sales manager ambiversion does account for a significant amount of variance in job performance.
