Volume 13
Goal-oriented Balancing: a New Model of Contemporary Sales Management
Lars-Johan Åge, Stockholm School of Economics Abstract This study focuses on the substantive area of sales management and it suggests that the main concern of a sales manager is to reach the sales and economical goals of the sales organization. The social process by which this main concern is resolved is called goal-oriented balancing and it describes two complementary organizational dimensions, frame development and individual development that are continuously balanced against each other. That is, the sales manager must establish effective organizational processes and structures as well as find the keys to maximum individual performance. These two processes have to be in balance and supportive of each other. Introduction A sales manager’s responsibilities include assigning territories, mentoring team members, assigning training, and building a plan. Managers are often involved in hiring and firing and have to determine sales force effectiveness. They also have to determine sales force effectiveness by continually assessing how well members of the sales organization perform. These evaluations provide a basis for rewards, but they also generate feedback that can be used to improve the overall sales management process. The aim of this grounded theory study is to produce a theory that explains the main concern of sales managers and how the population resolves that main concern. Data was collected for this study from 27 interviews in 13 different companies that were regarded as very effective sales organizations. The first eight companies were nominated as “best sales organization” in Sweden 2011 by Weekly Business (in Swedish: Veckans Affärer), a leading periodical. The other five were chosen based on snowball technique and were recommended by the respondents in the first sample. Data were primarily collected from interviews, each of which lasted approximately 1-2 hours. The respondents were sales managers or directors. The criterion for choosing respondents was that they should have responsibility for the whole sales organization. Therefore, middle sales managers were not included. The author conducted the interviews at the respondents’ organization. Leading questions were avoided during the interviews; rather, interviewees were asked to respond freely to general open-ended questions about the challenges and difficulties they experienced during these management processes. According to Glaser (1978), such an attitude of “openness”(p. 44) is crucial for developing the emerging theory. Finally, existing categories were allowed to guide the interviews to some extent. The interviews were audio-recoded and notes were taken. Extant Literature Within the extant sales literature, researchers have often considered the characteristics of the salesperson as the main predictor of sales performance and sales effectiveness (Babakus, Cravens, Grant, Ingram, & LaForge, 1996). Two of the most well known efforts are the models presented by Walker, Churchill, and Ford (1977) and Weitz (1979, 1981). However, these studies resulted in a lack of “adequate explanation of observed inconsistencies” (Churchill, Ford, Hartley, & Walker, 1985, p. 103); in the 1980s, researchers started to focus on sales management practices as determinants of salespersons’ performance and sales organization effectiveness. To understand these managerial factors, three different and rather disconnected areas of research emerged around the themes of motivation, control systems, and compensation plans (Brown, Evans, Mantrala & Challagalla, 2005). Sales force motivation research is based on psychological theories and emphasizes personal characteristics and perceptions as determinants of individual performance (Vinchur, Schippmann, Switzer, & Roth, 1998; Brown & Peterson, 1994; Bagozzi, 1980; Brown, Cron, & Slocum, 1998). The literature involving control systems has mainly focused on metrics and monitoring, and draws on management and organizational theories (Anderson & Oliver, 1987; Oliver & Andersson,...Systematic Avocating
Jan Green and Ben Binsardi, Glyndŵr University, Wrexham Abstract Feeling obliged to undertake complex research tasks outside core working hours is a common occurrence in academia. Detailed and timely research projects are expected; the creation and defence of sufficient intervals within a crowded working schedule is one concern explored in this short version paper. Merely working longer hours fails to provide a satisfactory solution for individuals experiencing concerns of this nature. Personal effort and drive are utilised and requires the application of mental mustering and systematic procedures. The attitude to research work is treating the task as a hobby conceptualised as avocating. Whilst this provides a personal solution through immersion in the task, this approach should raise concerns for employers. The flexibility of grounded theory is evident and the freedom to draw on various bodies of knowledge provides fresh insight into a problem that occurs in organizations in many sectors experiencing multiple priorities. The application of the core category, systematic avocating, may prove beneficial. Keywords: avocating, flow, personal drive, time management, support mechanisms. Introduction Sources of motivation, individual engagement and work/life balance strategies within the workplace are topics that have been subject to extensive scrutiny by researchers since Maslow’s work in the 1940s. In contrast, limited attention has been given to behaviours of highly engaged and motivated individuals who are accomplished performers and strive to complete complex, time-consuming tasks in addition to a busy core role. Personal development and achieving career aspirations are the most frequently cited individual rationales for undertaking additional tasks within the work place. Evidence of working on supplementary tasks in business departments of academic institutions is widespread where there is an expectation to undertake research and publish the results within specific timeframes. This work contributes towards the Research Excellence Framework (www.ref.ac.uk) in the UK, the system for assessing research, which determines public funding and affect the reputation of universities. The scope and focus of this discussion paper is limited to this specific example. However the theory generated is readily transferable to other sectors and roles where research and undertaking additional projects are requirements, as the concerns and their resolution are of a similar nature and indicate the theory is modifiable to fit other circumstances. The theoretical proposition is that the accomplished performer draws on less visible and less documented support mechanisms and interpretations of work when undertaking additional tasks having close links with the way in which hobbies are addressed. How support is sourced and utilised may be complex, intermittent and varied. The aim of this study is to reveal the behaviours that contribute towards a solution, for individuals striving to fulfil additional strata of work and, is based on a general problem area (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). It is anticipated that the grounded theory will provide additional insight into this issue for academics and practitioners to support not only their own future endeavours but also those of colleagues and managers requesting extra effort and task completion from staff. “In the absence of clear-cut procedures and definitions,” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p.1) which effectively address the issues of work-place fatigue and complex endeavours, there is a clear research gap that warrants attention to provide a useable theory with practitioner understanding. Data were gathered from a sample of research active academics employed in business and management departments to ensure potential respondents have first-hand experience of the specific problem. The format of the data collection consisted initially of “open-ended conversations during which the respondents are allowed to...Book Review: Beneficial Applicability of Grounded Theory
Astrid Gynnild, University of Bergen Glaser, B. (2014). Applying grounded theory: A neglected option. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. For what good is grounded theory? How can it be applied? Who finds it useful, and are there specific issues that ought to be considered before, or during, deliberate application of grounded theories? These are but some of the issues that are raised in Barney G. Glaser’s latest book, which deals with applying grounded theory. In this 190 page book, which is actually a reader, Dr. Glaser’s new theorizing in the field is coupled with reprints of previously published material. In the first three chapters, Dr. Glaser contextualizes applying aspects of grounded theory in relation to previous literature and the variety of ways that grounded theories are implicitly used by researchers and laymen. Next, chapters from three of his earlier books are reprinted and thus recontextualized. The latter section of the book provides four reprint chapters on applying grounded theory provided by contemporary grounded theorists. Initially, Dr. Glaser points out that the application of grounded theory has so far been scarcely focused in the literature. His aim in the book is to elucidate applicable connections to professions, literature, service to clients, and personal use. Thus, Chapters 2 and 3 are devoted to discussing professional and private application of grounded theory respectively. I agree with Dr. Glaser that even though applying GT largely has been a neglected topic in the literature, the application of abstract grounded theory concepts goes on constantly. A good concept might be enough to improve practice; in many cases, there is no need for the full theory to be applied. At the same time, Dr. Glaser makes clear that when an existing theory is actually applied, the researcher must ensure the theory’s credible relevance to the application population. If necessary, the theory should be modified to ensure relevance, grab, and fit. In general, one should be careful in applying existing theories to a different population, because these individuals might have a different main concern. The apparent generalizability of a substantive theory does not imply that it is a formal theory. Consequently it should not be used as if it were generally applicable, but only be applied to similar areas of like concerns. Dr. Glaser’s example here is supernormalizing, which is a concern of both heart attack victims and football players. Doing grounded theory interventions with the goal of getting specific changes may, however, be just as risky as using any other kind of data, since purposeful goalsetting might be prompted by preconceptions. In Chapter 3, Glaser presents one of his favorite topics; the value of applying grounded theory for personal use. As often stated in his troubleshooting seminars, memoing on personal problems or challenges helps work and reason with the problem. He explains how the patterns ”soon jump out of the memos and yields thought on appropriate action” (Glaser, 2014, p. 36). The chapter is filled with illustrations provided by grounded theorists who have experienced the magic of applying grounded theory concepts or theories on issues with which they are grappling. The value of this book lies in particular in the multiple perspective approach to the topic. The content of the book is written over a time span of 50 years, from 1965 till now, and comprises 11 chapters. The four last chapters are reprints with comments added by Dr. Glaser. Together, the great variety of chapters provides a unique blend of perspectives on the applicability of...About the Authors
Annabel-Mauve Adjognon is an Associate Professor at Neoma Business School. She holds a PhD in Management Science and Business Administration from the école des Hautes Etudes, Paris. Her research interests are primarily in leadership, organizational politics, and management skills. She has also conducted research on sustainable development and corporate social responsibility. She regularly presents her research at international academic conferences and serves as an ad hoc reviewer for various academic journals. Email: am.adjognon@neoma-bs.fr Lars-Johan Age is a researcher within the field of sales and negotiation at Stockholm School of Economics. He has a PhD and his dissertation was about complex business processes; his focus today is on negotiation. He also has practical experiences within sales, sales management, and negotiation. A keen interest for him is that research is contributing to managerial relevance, which also is the basis for his interest in grounded theory methodology. His next study is to conduct a grounded theory study in the field of negotiation and produce research that can be used in all negotiation processes whether it is a crisis, business, diplomatic, or labour negotiation. Email: Lars-johan.Age@hig.se Connie Bøttcher Berthelsen Dr. Berthelsen completed her MScN in 2007 and her PhD in 2013 from the Section of Nursing, Faculty of Health Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Berthelsen has a strong background in orthopedic care; for her PhD, she generated three theories of relatives, patients, and health professionals’ pattern of behavior in relation to relatives’ involvement in older patients’ fast-track programs during total joint replacement, using Dr. Glaser’s classic grounded theory method. Dr. Berthelsen is currently an assistant professor at Section of Nursing, Aarhus University and a postdoctoral fellow at Department of Orthopedic at the Regional Hospital of Køge. She is currently working on her postdoctoral study of developing, implementing, and evaluating a case management intervention for spouses to improve older patients’ functional status after total hip arthroplasty with spouses involved. Email: cb@ph.au.dk Ben Binsardi is a Reader in the Business and Management department at Glyndwr University. He completed his undergraduate and postgraduate studies at Texas Tech and Wichita State Universities. He then obtained a PhD from Loughborough, studying econometrics and undertook a Research Fellowship at the University of Oxford. Ben has published several textbooks and journal articles in the areas of research methodology, marketing, and finance. He is chair of SIG Qualitative Methodology at the Academy of Marketing Conferences. Ben teaches research methodology in conjunction with Jan, he is a member of the Grounded Theory Institute, and has worked with Jan and Professor Andy Lowe to host a number of classic GT workshops at Glyndwr University which have attracted a pan-European attendance. Email: b.binsardi@glyndwr.ac.uk Kirsten Frederiksen completed her M.Ed. in 1999 and her PhD in 2005 from the Institute of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts Aarhus University, Denmark. Dr. Frederiksen has her background in both qualitative educational and qualitative clinical research. Dr. Frederiksen is currently associate professor and study director at Section of Nursing, Aarhus University, Denmark. Email: kf@ph.au.dk Barney G. Glaser is the cofounder of grounded theory (1967). He received his PhD from Columbia University in 1961. He then went to University of California San Francisco, where he joined Anselm Strauss in doing the dying in hospitals study and in teaching PhD and DNS students, methods, and analysis. He published over 20 articles on this research and the dying research. Since then, Glaser has written nearly 20 more books using grounded theory and about grounded theory, and countless articles. In 1998 he received an honorary...Editorial: The Multidimensional Usefulness of Grounded Theories
Astrid Gynnild, Editor This issue of the Grounded Theory Review demonstrates the multidimensional usefulness of doing grounded theories. Raising awareness through systematized conceptualizing is undoubtedly the number one reason for generating grounded theories. But, as demonstrated in the conceptual discussion of applying GT by Barney G. Glaser, raising awareness is just one of many benefits of the method. The general section in this issue contains three theories that focus on human patterns of coping with change, but from very different disciplinary perspectives. The grounded theory of struggling with and for by authors Berit S. Brinchmann and Henrik Sollie provides crucial insights into everyday challenges of parents of hard-to-treat ADHD teenagers. Their GT indicates that parents experience just as many problems with the helping agencies as with their own teenagers. Identifying this double bind relationship to the helping agencies opens up new ways of understanding family strengths and capabilities, and might help to build professional support upon familiar coping strategies. In a similar manner, Barbara Yalof, in her GT study of online learners, identifies the various ways that online students of different temperaments respond to a main concern of helplessness and isolation. Their challenges are resolved through marshaling resources, which indicates that peer-to-peer support systems are more important in online learning than facilitators may have previously realized. The marshaling resources theory helps explain how unmet student needs might cause some students to drop out and other students to feel empowered, and supports the idea that developing support networks is of great importance for online students as well as for their institutions. Jan Green and Ben Binsardi’s grounded theory of trenchant remedying challenges existing assumptions of individual resistance to change in management literature. The authors identify effective change concern resolving behaviours in private-sector businesses; behaviours that represent what the authors call “an antithesis to traditional change management solutions.” It is pointed out that organizational change is uphill and uncertain, requiring prolonged and persistent effort. The grounded theory of trenchant remedying proposes that the most important solution is expended vigor and effort. The authors identify four levels of individual change efforts, and trenchancy as the theoretical complimentary concept in order to complete the change. The theory is indeed useful for the further development of management approaches in a time of constant change. Each of the above theories implicitly highlights credibility, relevancy and usefulness as important aspects of using the grounded theory method, albeit in very different areas. Following up these crucial issues, we are also very happy to present, in short form, a conceptual discussion drawn from the latest writings by co-founder of grounded theory, Barney G. Glaser. The paper “Applying Grounded Theory” by Glaser identifies application and usefulness issues of grounded theories. He discusses how properties of GTs are often, more or less purposely, applied to situations, populations, or areas of interest, and how extended awareness of applying GTs might lead to further investigations of a field. Glaser also points out that GTs are often applied almost automatically “as an informal conceptual explanation as it may occur in casual conversation or happening.” This fact says something important about the potential strengths and impact of GTs. The article is identical to the first chapter of Glaser’s coming book on applying grounded theory, an aspect of grounded theory building which until now has drawn relatively little attention, but might be of great importance to all parties involved. In the last paper of the section for shorter conceptual discussions, Isabelle Walsh suggests grounded theory...