Erasmus School of Economics

Department of Marketing

Master’s Thesis

BEHAVIORAL AND GENETIC VALIDATION OF

CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

Name: Niccolò G. Fanin

Student ID: 358571

Supervisor: W. E. van den Berg

Date: August 6, 2012

1

ABSTRACT

Representing and expressing the marketing concept applied to sales, the Customer

Orientation seems the most effective method to establish a long-term relationship and

effectively deliver value to customers. Many scholars defined the customer

orientation and explained how salespeople achieve it. On the other hand, the main aim

of this study is to explain why salespeople better and more naturally engage in this

sales approach. By doing this, we further validate the concept, taking insights from

psychology, endocrinology and genetics.

Based on the literature, we hypothesized that customer orientated salespeople are

sensation seekers, proactive and susceptible to embarrassment. On the other hand, we

stated that sales oriented salespeople are not sensation seekers, not proactive and

usually do not feel embarrassed. Based on that, we further infer that the first ones

possess a particular dopamine neurotransmitter, the DRD4-7R; while, the second ones

the DRD2-A1.

We worked with a sample of 60 salespeople, we assessed their psychological

tendencies through questionnaires and their DNA, looking for specific genes. What

we did demonstrate is that the DRD4-7R is strongly connected through the customer

Orientation and, in turn, to sensation seeking and proactivity. In fact, these behavioral

tendencies naturally help and support the salespeople in engaging in the specific sales

approach.

2

TABLE OF CONTENT

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….5

The concept of customer orientation…………………………………………………………...9

Customer orientation: effects, influences and correlations……………….12

Customer orientation: causes and antecedents………………………………..15

Sales orientation…………………………………………………………………………….17

Endophenotypes……………………………………………………………………………………….19

Sensation seeking…………………………………………………………………………...20

Sensation seeking and customer orientation……………………………………20

Proactivity……………………………………………………………………………………..23

Proactivity and customer orientation………………………………………………24

Embarrassment………………………………………………………………………………27

Embarrassment and customer orientation……………………………………….28

Genotypes…………………………………………………………………………………………………31

Dopamine……………………………………………………………………………………….31

Sensation seeking……………………………………………………………………………33

Proactivity………………………………………………………………………………………34

Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………38

Results………………………………………………………………………………………………………41

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………44

Endophenotypes analysis………………....……………………………………………..45

Genetic analysis……………………....………………………………………………………48

3

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………..49

Managerial implications…………………………………………………………………51

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………………….53

Technical appendix…………………………………………………………………………………..57

References……………………………………………………………………………………………….61

4

INTRODUCTION

Scholars register a current trend in business-to-business marketing: the shift from

sales of products to sales of customized solutions (Tuli, Kohli, & Bharadwaj, 2007).

This is the result of an increased complexity of the selling process. Customers demand

more complex and customized solutions, as an answer to multifaceted problems. This

new complex environment requires salespeople to invest considerably more time and

efforts in building a trustworthy relationship with the customer, by which they

identify the needs first and then predispose a unique mix of available resources that

satisfy those needs (Bonney & Williams, 2009; Dhar, Menon, & Maach, 2004; W.

Verbeke, Dietz, & Verwaal, 2011).

The most important selling paper of the 20th century according to Leigh, Pullins, &

Comer (2007), i.e., Churchill Jr, Ford, Hartley, & Walker Jr, (1985) ,characterizes six

sales drivers that considerably affect the overall selling performance: (1) personal

characteristics, (2) skill levels, (3) role perceptions, (4) aptitude, (5) motivation, and

(6) organizational/environmental variables. Important here is that they suggest that

performance is mainly affected by so-called “influenceable” determinants (i.e., skill

level, role perceptions, and motivation), not only by personal characteristics (i.e,

aptitude, personal characteristics). .

In line with the current market developments, (Bonney & Williams, 2009) observed

that today salespeople need to engage in (sales) opportunity recognition, rather than

just products selling, and are required to provide customized and unique solutions.

5

More specifically, solution-oriented sellers engage in awareness (i.e., perception of

elements, comprehension their meanings, and projection of their status in the future),

problem-solution discovery (i.e., process of formulating responses to elements

individuated in awareness; it defines customers’ problem and explore potential

solutions), and evaluation (i.e., cognitive process used to assess the workability of

ideas, resources needed and their value). Throughout these activities, salesperson can

engage in spotting the opportunities and conceive the most effective mix of resources,

adapt to the specific customer.

Building on this work, (W. Verbeke et al., 2011) conducted a meta-study on sales

performance and found that there are five drivers of sales performance that have an

independent predictive effect on sales performance: (1) selling-related knowledge

(i.e., the depth and width of knowledge base that salespeople need to size up sales

situations, classify prospects, and select appropriate sales strategies for clients (2)

degree of adaptiveness (i.e., altering of sales behavior in accordance to perceived

information about the selling situation), (3) role ambiguity (i.e., perceived of lack of

information and uncertainty about expectations of different role set members, (4)

cognitive aptitude (i.e., general mental ability, verbal ability, and qualitative ability,

(5) and work engagement (i.e., persistent positive affective-motivational state of

fulfillment.

Their explanation is that the current environment and the world are moving toward a

knowledge-intensive (W. Verbeke et al., 2011; W. J. Verbeke, Belschak, Bakker, &

Dietz, 2008) and science-based economy (Stremersch & Van Dyck, 2009). This

forces the salespeople to engage in more complex task: knowledge brokering activity.

6

More specifically, they are required to transfer know-why and know-how to

customers and companies (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). As a result, nowadays the

(selling-related) knowledge plays an important role and has become an endogenous

part of the creation of value in terms of innovation, production, marketing, and selling

products and services (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). Salespeople are required to

communicate how their products or services solve the explicit and latent customers’

problems (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). They have to collect information from the

company about the products and transfer them to the customers; in addition, they have

to investigate customers’ needs and transfer them to the company for future

products/solutions. As a consequence, in the current knowledge-intense economy the

relationship between the customer and the seller is even more important than in the

past, as well as the salesperson’s cognitive abilities to communicate the knowledge

(Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).

To conclude, one specific and general trend is observable regarding the driver of sales

performance evolution: the overall increased amount of complexity of the customer-

salesperson interaction process. Customers’ needs are more multifaceted and its

profitable resolution require salespeople to be solution providers. In order to fully

understand the needs of the customer, and subsequently provide the custom solution

that they require, salespeople need to be socially skilled (W. J. Verbeke et al., 2008),

empathic, and able to metalize the customers (latent) needs (Dietvorst et al., 2009).

Finally, they need to possess the cognitive ability to manage more complex

knowledge and resources for conceiving an effective and profitable mix of those, able

to solve customers’ needs.

7

However, the concept of focusing on, and interacting with the customer, in an attempt

to co-create the best possible solutions is not new to the field of selling. Robert Saxe

and Barton Weitz in 1982 introduced the concepts of Customer Orientation and Sales

Orientation within selling context, in one of the top ten selling articles of the twentieth

century (Leigh et al., 2001). They defined the two approaches adopted by salespeople

and developed a scale to measure the degree to which salespeople engage in

consumer-orientated or sales-oriented selling (Saxe & Weitz, 1982), the SOCO. In

short, customer oriented selling is a sales orientation in which co-creation, interaction

with the customer and identifying novel opportunities and solutions are key. In

contrast, sales oriented salesperson will simply try to pressure the customer into

buying, sometimes even by moving ambiguous or distorted information towards their

clients. As we will elaborate on below, we conceive having a customer oriented sales

approach as a prerequisite towards becoming a knowledge broker.

The aim of this study is to further study the concept of customer orientation, in an

effort to further conceptualize, understand and up-date the concept of customer

oriented selling. Subsequently, we will gauge possible underlying personality traits

(endophenotypes) that might be associate with customer orientation. Finally, we will

try to link these endophenotypes with biolgocial markers, in an attempt to further

validate the concept of customer orientation. More specifically, following (Bagozzi,

Verbeke, Berg, Rietdijk, & Dietvorst, 2011) we will look for genetic variants.

The paper flows as follows. First we will present an overview of the existing literature

regarding customer orientation. Second we will present data that define potentially

interesting endophenotypes that underlie this selling strategy. After that, we will

8

present data on the genetic antecedents on customer orientation. We will draw

conclusions and end with managerial implications and limitations.

9

THE CONCEPT OF CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

Kurtz, Dodge, and Klompmaker in 1976 described professionalism in sales as the

adoption of problem-solving approach to the job. In other words, they highlighted that

professional salespeople do not sell products: they are solution providers who

understand customers’ needs and deliver value (Bosworth, 1995). This was in line by

earlier observations by Bursk, (1947), who introduced the idea of “low-pressure

selling”, and Gwinner (1968) who expressed the notion of need satisfaction/problem

solution selling approach. Later, the concept was deepened by (Rieser, 1962) and

contrasted against approaches based on camaraderie and/or pressure, which are

conceived to be characteristics of a sales orientation selling orientation.

Contempory salespeople are required to determine the needs of a target market and

adapt themselves to satisfy those needs better than its competitors (Saxe & Weitz,

1982). In other words, they create value (i.e., customers’ perspective of achieving

desired benefits attributable to the salesperson, and the company (Singh & Koshy,

2011) with customers’ needs in mind (Jaramillo, Ladik, Marshall, & Mulki, 2007).

More specifically, Michel, Vargo, & Lusch, (2008) argued that shifting the focus of

the offering from an output to a process of value creation makes the consumer to

perceive the supplier as an organizer of this process, in which the customer is a co-

producer, rather than a receiver of value. Consequently, they establish a long-term

relationship, reciprocally advantageous for both involved parts (Anderson, 1996;

Bagozzi et al., 2011).

10

In their landmark paper, Saxe & Weitz, (1982) posit that the customer oriented selling

is strongly connected with the concept of marketing per se. It is an integrated and

companywide approach in which all of the firm’s activities are directed toward

providing customer satisfaction and establishing mutually beneficial, long-term

relationships with its market (Kotler, 1972). More specifically, customer orientation is

the “degree to which salespeople practice the marketing concept by trying to help

customers make the purchase decisions that will satisfy customers needs” (Saxe &

Weitz, 1982). As such, customer oriented salespeople aim at providing satisfaction to

consumers, through the application of marketing concept at individual level (Singh &

Koshy, 2012) focusing in the long-term satisfaction (Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh &

Koshy, 2012). Later, Singh & Koshy, (2012) updated the customer orientation

definition as customer-centric behaviors, which includes gathering and disseminating

information relevant for consumers, to understand and continuously fulfill their

hierarchy of latent needs, and to keep them satisfied by creating and delivering value

through long-term relationships. Substantially, they introduce customer orientation as

a key driver also the concept of “value” (Singh & Koshy, 2012).

According to the dimensions of the SOCO scale (Saxe & Weitz, 1982), customer

orientation has the following domain areas: desire to help customers make satisfactory

purchase decisions, ability to help customer assess their needs, offer products that

satisfy their needs, adapt sales presentations to match customer interests, avoid

deceptive or manipulative tactics, and avoid the use of high pressure selling. Later in

2012, Singh and Koshy updated the domain areas: customer oriented salespeople must

provide information to customers (i.e., declarative knowledge and procedural

knowledge), understand customers’ needs (i.e., the hierarchy of latent and expressed

11

needs, in short and long term (Simester, Hauser, Wernerfelt, & Rust, 2000), fulfill

customer needs continuously (by having motivation and enjoyment in selling process

(Brown, Mowen, Donavan, & Licata, 2002)), create and deliver customer value,

sustain customer satisfaction (“goal-directed activity to be continuously strived for”)

and maintain long-term relationships with customers.

Customer oriented salespeople, as opposed to sales-oriented, constantly source

knowledge, such that they build insights (i.e., categories and solutions) that allow

them to spot customer needs better and connect those needs categories and solutions

(i.e., knowledge brokering activity) (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Thus, they engage in

analogical reasoning, situational cognition, and involve the customer in stimulating

and functional conversations; so that, energizing discussion in intellectual and

emotional ways. As a result, the sales process becomes a “co-creation of solutions”

(Bagozzi et al., 2011).

Furthermore, customer oriented salespeople avoid behaviors that might result in

consumer dissatisfaction, and present a high concern for the others/high concern for

the self, as premise for a mutually beneficial relationship (Bagozzi et al., 2011). As a

result, customer oriented salespeople avoid actions which sacrifice customer interest

to increase the probability of making immediate sale (Jaramillo et al., 2007; Saxe &

Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2012).

Customer orientation: effects, influences and correlations

12

Scholars agree that customer orientation not only has specific effect on the

relationship customer-seller, but also involves and affect the overall firm. According

to Jaramillo et al., (2007), the adoption of CO selling approach influences employees,

customers and the overall organization.

In fact, it affects the implementation of innovative technology, job attitudes, turnover

intentions, and organizational citizenship behavior (Jaramillo et al., 2007). On the

customer side, it fosters relationship development, satisfaction and loyalty (Jaramillo

et al., 2007). From the perspective of the company of the salesperson, it influences

innovation, the adaptive selling, relationships with supervisors, job satisfaction,

motivation and commitment toward the organization (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, & Taylor,

2002; Siguaw, Brown, & Widing, 1994; Williams & Attaway, 1996).

Additionally, Siguaw et al., (1994) concluded that there is a positive correlation

between the adoption of the customer orientation and positive sale performance

(sustained also by Rozell, Pettijohn, & Parker, (2004), especially, but not only

(Jaramillo et al., 2007), in B2B environment (Johnston & Marshall, 2005; Rackham &

DeVincentis, 1998). Consistent with this, Singh & Koshy, (2011) pinpointed positive

association between customer orientation, value creation in the relationship and

relationship development. Furthermore, Singh & Koshy, (2012) explain that customer

orientation is positively correlated with learning goal orientation which is the process

by which salespeople enjoy the process of learning and use it in order to achieve their

goals (Harris, Mowen, & Brown, 2005; Sujan, Weitz, & Kumar, 1994), interaction

orientation (i.e., task orientation) (Novicevic & Harvey, 2001), people orientation

13

(Jordan & Cartwright, 1998), and service orientation (i.e., customers’ treatment,

employee empowerment, and service aspects (Lytle, Hom, & Mokwa, 1998)).

However, customer orientation presents some side effects and risks; thus, it requires

an effective management in order to be profitable. Customer oriented salespeople

have to face and overcome the opportunity cost that arises when short-term sales are

sacrificed to maintain customer satisfaction and increase the probability of future

purchase (Pettijohn et al., 2002; Saxe & Weitz, 1982). In addition, they also have to

face the costs supported and time spent in gathering information about customers’

needs, rather than selling (Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2011). Saxe &

Weitz, (1982) individuated two main circumstances that permit the customer-oriented

salespeople to profitably engage in the sales approach. They need independency and

availability of resources in order to be able to tailor offering to customers’ needs.

More specifically, they need the ability to understand the needs and accessibility of a

broad range of products that can be offered as solutions. Then, they need to be able to

establish a free flow of information, result of a close and trustworthy relationship

between the seller and the customer. Indeed, the salespeople are required to represent

a source of trustworthy information and a partner with which the customers

collaborate in order to identify first, and then solve, their needs (Jaramillo et al.,

2007). By doing so, they are similarly able to reduce the cost per sale and increase

satisfaction for both parts (Saxe & Weitz, 1982).

To sum up, Saxe and Weitz propose two situational factors that determine the

customer orientation’s benefits to overweigh its cost: (1) relations, which is conceived

as the degree to which the customer-salesperson relationship is long-term and

14

cooperative” and (2) ability to help, which is “ability of salespeople to help their

customers satisfy their needs”.

Customer orientation: causes and antecedents

During the last decade, scholars focused on discovering customer orientation’s

antecedents and causes: they make connections with personality traits, psychological,

biological and genotypic antecedents. Specifically, Bagozzi et al., (2011) explored the

genetic and neurological bases for customer orientation and contrast them with sales

orientation. They have discovered many interesting findings, which are presented

here.

Firstly, customer orientation is related to empathy (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Widmier,

2002), since it is composed by perspective-taking and empathic concern (McBane,

1995), both positively correlated to adaptive selling (Giacobbe, Jackson Jr, Crosby, &

Bridges, 2006), thus to customer orientation (Franke & Park, 2006). In fact,

salespeople high in perspective-taking are better able to understand and meet the

special needs of each customer (Widmier, 2002). On the other hand, the emotional

dimension of empathy (i.e., empathic concern) permits the salesperson to have

vicarious emotional responses, as a result of emotional experiences of others (Brems,

1989). This creates a desire to maximize their vicarious enjoyment through the

satisfaction of the customer (Widmier, 2002).

Secondly, customer oriented salespeople engage in opportunity recognition (Bonney

& Williams, 2009), which is composed by contextual knowledge formation,

15

motivation to learn about the customers and buying center knowledge formation

(Bagozzi et al., 2011). More specifically, the opportunity recognition ability requires

salespeople to develop abstract insight, remain curious and sensitive to threats,

opportunity and development in the relationship with the customers (Bagozzi et al.,

2011). As a result, they establish better connections between what consumers

communicate and their own knowledge and experience of the solutions. Then, they

maintain a high motivation and readiness to learn about customers needs and to meet

those needs with products and services (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Lastly, opportunity

recognition demands to address customers’ pain with tailored solutions, but also

manage resistance to adoption and political issue concerning the purchase (Bagozzi et

al., 2011).

Thirdly, the complexity and the requirements of the current sales world make

salespersons’ role closer to the concept of entrepreneurship (Bonney & Williams,

2009). In fact, there are many similarities between them. Entrepreneurship could be

defined as discovering and exploiting resources misallocations; in other words, it

means to find new and profitable ways to allocate resources (Bonney & Williams,

2009). This concept and activities parallel the task in which is involved a solution-

provider salesperson (Bonney & Williams, 2009). Salespeople must be sensitive to

customers and market patterns, must engage in time- and effort-consuming

relationships with customers in order to understand their needs, to spot new sales

opportunities, and to establish a long-term and trustworthy relationship. To conclude,

salespeople are required to risk, invest resources in order to create future and

uncertain value; this is the main idea of entrepreneur (Bonney & Williams, 2009).

16

Sales Orientation

In order to deepen the Customer Orientation concept, Sales Orientation definition and

correlation are presented.

Sales orientation is widely discussed in the literature and opposed to Customer

orientation (Saxe & Weitz, 1982). Rieser, (1962) associated it with sales approaches

based on camaraderie and/or pressure. Later, Saxe & Weitz, (1982) correlated the

selling approach to actions aimed at realizing sales, even if they could be cause of

customer dissatisfaction in the long run. Further, they related it to low concern for the

others/high concern for the self. In fact, when a salesperson applies a sales orientation

s/he will try to achieve the sales, with no interest to the real needs of the customers.

Sales oriented salespeople are focused exclusively on “getting the sale” (Boles, Babin,

Brashear, & Brooks, 2001), performance orientation (Singh & Koshy, 2012), are more

likely to use tricks and techniques to get people to buy a product or service (Jaramillo

et al., 2007), and tend to sacrifice customer real and long-term interest (Boles et al.,

2001; Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Singh & Koshy, 2012).

In conclusion, sales orientation does not lead to value creation, even though is

positively related to relationship development (to a lesser extent than the customer

orientation, and mostly in short/medium term) (Singh & Koshy, 2011). However,

Boles et al., (2001) concluded that the sales orientation is not necessarily harmful per

se, since the customer expect to some extent selling activities, inherent with the role

itself.

17

18

ENDOPHENOTYPES

The next step in my customer orientation analysis is to gauge possible underlying

personality traits, i.e., endophenotypes, which might be associated with customer

orientation. This research’s pathway is enforced since the genotype cannot completely

explain the phenotype (i.e., the customer orientation) because the environment affects

and changes the genes’ output. As a result, the link between genotype and phenotype

is often uncertain and imprecise (Johannsen, 1909): the phenotypic output from the

brain (i.e., behavior; e.g., salespeople’s customer orientation) is not simply a sum of

all its parts (Gottesman & Gould, 2005). E.g., psychiatry scholars could not classify

the same diseases on the basis of the syndromic behaviors (i.e., phenotypes), since

they present different genotypes.

Endophenotypes are internal phenotypes discoverable by a biochemical test

(Gottesman & Gould, 2005; Gottesman & Shields, 1973). The reason why they are

often used in behavioral analysis and study is that they provide “means for identifying

the “downstream” traits or facets of clinical phenotypes, as well as the “upstream”

consequences of genes and, in principle, could assist in the identification of aberrant

genes in the hypothesized polygenic system conferring vulnerabilities to disorder”

(Gottesman & Gould, 2005). Indeed, endophenotypes denote a more stable personal

trait: they represent observable characteristics of an organism, which are the joint

product of both genotypic and environmental influences (Gottesman & Gould, 2005).

19

Sensation Seeking

Freud, Dufresne, & Richter, (2011) described the novelty as condition for enjoyment,

in which the former is the mean through people achieve the latter. Later, Marvin

Zuckerman defined sensation seeking as “biosocial dimension of personality

characterized by the need for varied, novel, and complex sensations and experiences

and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experiences

(Zuckerman, 1979). In addition, the American scholar divided it in four different

subscales: thrill and adventure seeking (e.g., risky but exciting sports), boredom

susceptibility (i.e., aversion to monotonous situations), experience seeking (i.e.,

seeking of sensation through mind, senses and nonconforming life-style), and

disinhibition (i.e., seeking sensation through social stimulation and drinking)

(Zuckerman, 1971). The first two are socially acceptable, while the others are less

socially acceptable (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978).

Nowadays sensation seeking is a person trait used by neuro-economists to explain

many human behaviors. Currently, sensation seeking is correlated with

entrepreneurship (specifically, DRD3 gene) (Nicolaou, Shane, Cherkas, Hunkin, &

Spector, 2008), autonomous (Zuckerman, 2004) and non-routine job (Zuckerman et

al., 1978), and increased financial risk taking in men (Dreber et al., 2009).

Sensation seeking and Customer orientation

20

Salespeople’s CO is expressed by the intention of establishing with the consumers a

long-term relationship, applying the marketing concept (Kotler, 1972), motivation

(Thakor & Joshi, 2005) and empathy (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dawson, Bloch, &

Ridgway, 1990) in order to understand the customers. All these actions require the

salespeople to take risks (Joshi & Randall, 2001; Pettijohn et al., 2002; Saxe & Weitz,

1982): they bet on uncertain long-term sales result instead of maintaining a short-term

focus (Bagozzi et al., 2011). Moreover, in a knowledge-intense environment

salespeople must be knowledge broker (W. Verbeke et al., 2011) and the activity of

sourcing information involves tradeoffs and risk-taking: time spent gathering

knowledge might be better spent on actual selling (Joshi & Randall, 2001; Saxe &

Weitz, 1982).

The literature explain that CO is also related to “opportunity recognition” (Bonney &

Williams, 2009), so the ability to spot the customers’ needs and connect those needs

with their categories and solutions (i.e., knowledge brokering; (W. Verbeke et al.,

2011). Scholars have been found the ability of recognize the opportunity to be

correlated with the genetic component of novelty seeking: the human reward system

and the activation of the dopamine pathways in the brain (Bagozzi et al., 2011).

Consequently, Customer oriented salespeople need to be novelty-seeking, condition

that allows them to recognize the (sales) opportunity. In fact, Bagozzi et al., (2011)

explain that salespeople with high CO are “especially known to be involved in

novelty seeking, by chasing new challenges, risk taking, and the satisfaction that

comes from this searching process”. Empathic CO salespeople are able to create a

“free flow of information” (Saxe & Weitz, 1982) during sales encounter with the

customers, in which they can express their novelty seeking attitude and curiosity in

21

order to (1) “feel the customers’ pain”, (2) uncover their needs and (3) connect those

needs to firm’s products (see knowledge-brokering activity) (Jaramillo et al., 2007).

As a result, there are many factors that contribute salespeople to be sensation seekers:

the knowledge-intense environment and the customer orientation itself require them to

be risk-taker, while the opportunity recognition entails their novelty seeking nature. In

conclusion, customer oriented salespeople are sensation seekers.

Hypothesis:

H1: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high on SSS (i.e., sensation

seeking scale)

On the other hand:

H2: Sales Oriented salespeople score low on SSS (i.e., sensation seeking

scale)

Note that this hypothesis would be consistent with Brown et al., (2002) findings: the

scholars identified dimensions that foster the customer orientation: meeting

customers’ needs (Brown et al., 2002), enjoyment (Brown et al., 2002), and job

satisfaction (Flaherty, Dahlstrom, & Skinner, 1999; Siguaw et al., 1994). In other

words, the enjoyment/satisfaction itself determines the motivation for salespeople to

engage in customer orientation. Indeed, sensation seekers are able to investigate the

consumers’ needs, looking for novelty and engaging in risk-taking activity, because

by doing this they can increase the dopamine level and, as a consequence, get

arousal/enjoyment and satisfaction.

22

Finally, to be noted that high sensation seekers are more likely than low sensation

seekers to engage in risky behaviors then, after the fact, less likely to label them as

risky (Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002). Thus, since

salespeople’s behavior has to be focused on concrete long-term relationship with the

customers, and not only on the sake of novelty seeking’s experiences (Zuckerman,

1979), the salesperson has to control his natural curiosity, avoiding to fail as a

consequence of the enamor for the novelty (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). As a result,

sales managers could find it effective to coach salespeople dealing with their

sensation-seeking nature: they must to learn (1) that sensation seeking is only a mean

finalized to achieve better sales performance, and (2) to control the side-effects

arising from exasperated sensation seeking (i.e., disinhibition and boredom

susceptibility (Zuckerman, 1971)).

Proactivity

According to interactionist perspective in psychology, people and situations shape and

determine each other’s in a mutual relationship (Schneider, 1983). Consequently,

proactivity is considered a relatively stable behavioral tendency to affect

environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In other words, proactive people, as

opposed to reactive subjects, tend to actively affect the situation/context in which they

are. They “intentionally and directly change their current circumstances, social or

nonsocial” (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Moreover, they dynamically alter and shape the

23

environments, rather than adapt and react to them (Maddi, 1989). The main elements

that constitute proactivity are: intended realization for a pre-planned outcome,

effective change in reality, and creation of new circumstances (Bateman & Crant,

1999). Proactivity is a personal disposition/proclivity; as a result, people are assumed

to be differently predisposed to behave proactively towards their situations (Bateman

& Crant, 1993). In other words, there are people that assume a proactive behavior

towards the environment in which they are, and people that react passively to, adapt

and are shaped by environment

Among the economic literature, proactivity is widely studied and assessed as a key

explanation of organizational behavior (Bell & Staw, 1989). It is associated with

potential of leadership (Bateman & Crant, 1993), career satisfaction (Ng, Eby,

Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), extraversion (i.e., the extent to which a subject is

outgoing, active, and high spirited) and openness to experience (i.e., imagination,

intelligence, curiosity, originality and open-mindedness) (Wanberg & Kammeyer-

Mueller, 2000), feedback seeking and relationship building (Bateman & Crant, 1993;

Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).

Proactivity and CO

As previously explained nowadays salespeople operate in a knowledge-intense

environment, as knowledge brokers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). Knowledge-brokering

activity per se requires salespeople to be proactive: salespeople have to transfer know-

why (from companies to customers) and know-how (from customers to salespeople)

24

(W. Verbeke et al., 2011). They also have to absorb knowledge, work cooperatively

with diverse team members, tailor messages to an increasingly complex audience of

stakeholders, and shape the minds of their customers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011). All

these are complex and demanding activities that require freedom and personal

initiative; in other words, proactivity. Furthermore, proactivity is correlated with other

knowledge-brokering proper activities: taking initiative in pursuing organizational

goals (Frese & Fay, 2001), craft job and tasks (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001)

according to diverse customers’ needs, and being independent, as they have to

manage and adapt to different, often unique, customers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011).

Grant & Ashford, (2008) described proactivity’s situational antecedents:

accountability (i.e., situation in which employees have to justify their actions to

others), ambiguity (i.e., uncertain and unclear situation) and autonomy (i.e., situations

in which employees have a high degree of freedom in deciding). Customer orientation

shares the same situational antecedents: salespeople have to justify their performance

to superior and peers, have to work in an unclear context in which every customer is a

new “unique problem to solve” and are independent and free in their knowledge-

transferring activity (W. Verbeke et al., 2011).

Furthermore, according to Frese & Fay, (2001), proactivity is related to long-term

focus that enables the employees to consider thing to come and do something about

them. Also CO salespeople focus on long-term, and must be able to sacrifice

immediate sales in order to improve the long run performance (Jaramillo et al., 2007).

Then, proactivity is also considered as the ability to identify a market opportunity

(Bateman & Crant, 1993, 1999; Frese & Fay, 2001). CO salespeople need to have the

25

ability of “opportunity recognition” (Bagozzi et al., 2011), in order to realize long-

term sales relationships with customers (W. Verbeke et al., 2011).

In conclusion, there are many similarities between proactivity and what customer

orientation requires nowadays to salespeople. They have to engage in demanding and

complex activities, proper of being a knowledge broker; they have to face uncertainty

and move independently between supplier and customers, transferring knowledge.

They have to be focused on long-term objectives, adapt to unique customers,

providing them tailored services. Salespeople need to take personal initiatives, and

ably recognize market opportunity. For all these reasons customer orientation is

positively correlated with proactivity.

Hypothesis:

H3: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high on proactivity scale

On the other hand,

H4: Sales Oriented salespeople score lower than Customer Oriented on

proactivity scale

Note that proactivity is also related to a tendency towards seeking new experiences

and activities (Bateman & Crant, 1993); in other words, it is related to sensation

seeking. In fact, proactivity and sensation seeking share common correlation with

taking risks: the latter by definition (Zuckerman, 1979), the former since strongly

related to entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996; Nicolaou et al., 2008), in other words, to a

risk-taking activity (Lawrence, Clark, Labuzetta, Sahakian, & Vyakarnum, 2008).

26

Embarrassment

Embarrassment is one of the so-called Self Conscious Emotions, with guilt, pride and

shame (Tangney & Fischer, 1995). They are different and distinct emotions and all of

them have value under social context and interaction (Miller, 1997).

According to Modigliani, (1968) and Miller (1996) analysis, embarrassment is a

common experience that may be elicited by a great variety of social interactions. It is

caused by a violation of social expectation and, as a result, by being socially

inappropriate. Consequently, (1) the subject feels sense of exposure, of inadequacy, of

awkward self-consciousness. Then, (2) he will engage in coping responses (i.e.,

reconciliation and face-work), (3) (more likely) loosing adaptive resources. Finally,

(4) he will generate future avoidant behavior with regard to the significant other

present during the embarrassing event. The first phase tends to have positive effect on

the relationship between two people: it reveals a shared system of values existing

between two interacting subjects, and it is an important mechanism of social control

in face-to-face interactions (Miller, 1997). In addition, it is critical during social

interactions and it functions as “sincere nonverbal apology for possible misbehavior

that informs others of one’s contrition and desire to avoid rejection” (Semin &

Manstead, 1982).

Within the selling interaction/context, embarrassment tends to show to the customer

salespeople’s concern about his evaluation, showing trustworthy attitude and fostering

a long-term relationship (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). In fact, feeling embarrassed

could help the salesperson being accepted by the customers, due to their shared

27

values, and trust may emerge in the relationship (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). On

the other hand, the others phases could determine negative effects on the social future

interactions and sales encounters. In fact, the (3) loss of adaptive resources in

response to embarrassment, more likely lead to (4) avoidance of future contacts, and,

in turn, to negative sales performances (W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002).

Embarrassment and CO

Initially, customer oriented salespeople are more likely to engage in SC emotions,

since their necessary and characteristic adaptive selling is positively related to “self-

monitoring” (i.e., “ability to modify one’s self-presentation to match role expectation

in different social situations (Snyder, 1974)) (Golsby et al, 1992).

According to (Modigliani, 1968), there are two traits that affect one’s

embarrassability (i.e., susceptibility to embarrassment): (1) “sensitivity to immediate

evaluations of others (i.e., high empathy), and (2) general readiness to believe that

these evaluations are more negative than they really are”. The first trait is

characteristic of highly empathic people. In fact, they have a greater sensitivity to

others’ feelings and perceptions, so they are more likely to be conscious of others’

(negative) evaluations. As a result, they are more likely to loose situational-

subjective-public-esteem and feel embarrassed (Modigliani, 1968). Empathy is also a

fundamental characteristic in Customer oriented salespeople (Sin et al., 2005; W.

Verbeke et al., 2011). In fact, it allows them to feel the consumers’ pain (Eades, 2004)

and interact with them, instead of just selling (Bagozzi et al., 2011). As a result,

28

Customer oriented salespeople make the customers feel psychologically comfortable

(Edmondson & Woolley, 2003; Tanner, Ferraro, Chartrand, Bettman, & Van Baaren,

2008). This is important since, according to Saxe & Weitz, (1982), it allows the

salespeople to establish a trustworthy relationship with the customers, which is one

condition that make the customer orientation’s benefit overweigh its costs.

Salespeople with CO should have more embarassability than salespeople sales

oriented. In fact, the former are more empathic and sensible to other ideas, needs, and

judgments. This, in turn, allow them to (better) investigate and comprehend their

latent needs, as opposed to the latter; however, this personal trait also makes them

more likely to be affected by others’ negative perceptions, feeling embarrassed.

Hypothesis:

H5: Customer Oriented salespeople score medium-high embarrassment scale

On the other hand,

H6: Sales Oriented salespeople score low on embarrassment scale

Note that I cannot infer that there is a secure positive correlation between CO and

embarrassability because and I cannot be sure about the (Modigliani, 1968) second

trait condition that regulates the SC emotion (i.e., general readiness to believe that

these evaluations are more negative than they really are). However, according to their

nature more empathic by definition, CO salespeople should be more likely to feel/

have felt embarrassed during sales encounter.

29

Lastly, note that, in accordance with the existing literature, the embarrassment per se

has positive influence on the relationship between two persons. Conversely, it can

indirectly and negatively affect sales performance, due to the avoidance behaviors

(W. Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002). As a result, sales managers could find it useful to

coach salespeople to manage and be conscious about embarrassment and how to

effectively deal with its emotional responses.

GENOTYPES

30

In the following step we will try to link the endophenotypes with biolgocial markers,

in an attempt to further validate the concept of customer orientation. In other words,

we will look for biological/genetic traits governing salespeople’s customer

orientation. By doing this, we follow Roiser et al., (2009) findings: individual’s

genetic make-up influences his/her economic decision-making bias known as the

“frame effect” (Roiser et al., 2009), which occurs when the framing of a decision

affects an individual’s eventual choice (Roiser et al., 2009). More specifically, the

present study focuses on the genes for the neurotransmitter dopamine, which seem to

have important roles in decision-making (Dreber et al., 2009; Ebstein et al., 1996;

Nicolaou et al., 2008) and personality traits (Noblett & Coccaro, 2005; Reuter &

Hennig, 2005).

Note that this part is based on currently available literature about endophenotypes and

genotypes, so correlations will be hypothesized and tested whenever the extant

findings allow it. Actually, there is no literature investigating the genotype associated

with the endophenotype embarrassment. As a consequence, the hypothesis will be

formulated only on sensation seeking and proactivity.

Dopamine

Dopamine is a catecholamine neurotransmitter that plays a role in reward and

reinforcement (Neve, 2009). When dopamine pathways are activated the subject feels

physiological arousal, sensation of well-being and pleasure (Peterson, 2005).

Consequently, the subject associates with them the behavior that triggers the

31

activation (Dreber et al., 2010), making dopamine pathways responsible for

anticipation of rewards (Dreber et al., 2010; Kelley, Schiltz, & Landry, 2005; Netter,

2006) and motivation for obtaining them (Dreber et al., 2010; Kelley, 2004; Munafò,

Yalcin, Willis-Owen, & Flint, 2008). In other words, dopamine and the activation of

its neurotransmitters affect one’s decisions and economic behavior (Schultz, 2007).

Specifically, two particular genes are responsible of the dopamine release: DRD2 and

DRD4 (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dreber et al., 2009; Nicolaou, Shane, Adi, Mangino, &

Harris, 2011).

The dopamine neurotransmitter DRD4 present a trimodal distribution of 2, 4 and 7

repeat alleles (2R, 4R and 7R) (Ding et al., 2002). The 7-repeat allele of DRD4 is one

of the most studied by neuro-economists and has been used to explain different

economic behaviors (e.g., taking financial risks, entrepreneurship). Carriers of this

gene require an increased amount of dopamine for normal functioning (Swanson et

al., 2000), since they are less sensitive to dopamine intake (Dreber et al., 2010). As a

consequence, they are more likely to engage in more stimulating behaviors and, thus,

have been found correlated with novelty seeking (Munafò et al., 2008), (economic)

risk activities and preferences (Dreber et al., 2009, 2010; Kuhnen & Chiao, 2009),

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Li, Sham, Owen, & He, 2006),

entrepreneurship (Nicolaou et al., 2008) and the personal trait of extraversion (Reuter

& Hennig, 2005).

On the other hand, the dopamine receptor DRD2 presents different “variants”

(alleles); the most studied is DRD2 A1. It has been associated with a reduced number

of dopamine binding sites in the brain (Thompson et al., 1997) and, thus, its carriers

32

require and seek more stimulation (Bagozzi et al., 2011). But, as opposed to DRD4, it

has a different impact on people’s behavior (Dreber et al., 2009). First of all, neuro-

economists have associated it to difficulties in adapting cognitive strategies (Bagozzi

et al., 2011), making the subjects less able to, for example, engage in adaptive selling.

Then, the gene has been found correlated with a continuous research of immediate

gratification, thus, with subsequent difficulties in achieving long-term objectives

(Bagozzi et al., 2011; Dreber et al., 2009). As a consequence, its carriers tend to be

impulsive, short-term focused and continuously looking for source of quick

gratification. In fact, (Bagozzi et al., 2011) has been found the gene DRD2 A1

positively correlated with sales orientation, selling practice focused on achieving

immediate sales, with no regard to the customers’ long-term needs (Saxe & Weitz,

1982).

Sensation seeking

As previously explained, sensation seeking is a biosocial dimension of personality

that has already been associated by scholars with both novelty seeking and risk-taking

activities (Dreber et al., 2009; Zuckerman, 1979). For these reasons we infer a

positive association between it and DRD4 7R (Bagozzi et al., 2011; Nicolaou et al.,

2008).

Hypothesis:

H7: The presence of the endophenotype sensation seeking is correlated with

7R-variant DRD4

33

On the other hand, following Bagozzi et al (2011) findings, we associate the absence

of this endophenotype sensation seeking with the presence of DRD2 A1 gene.

Hypothesis:

H8: The absence of endophenotype sensation seeking is correlated with A1-

variant DRD2

Proactivity

Genetically speaking, there is no extant literature that investigates specifically the

correlation between proactivity and some specific genotype. However, there are many

similarities between proactivity and certain dopamine receptors, which allow us to

infer and formulate hypothesis.

As previously described, proactive people affect their environment (Bateman & Crant,

1993), creating new circumstances (Bateman & Crant, 1999); they are extrovert and

open to new experiences (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Proactivity is thus

related to long-term focus that enable them to think, project and plan what to do in the

future and how to change and shape the present environment (Bateman & Crant,

1999; Frese & Fay, 2001). Then, proactivity is also correlated with novelty seeking,

since proactive people affect the present environment in order to determine a new and

novel shape and structure (Bateman & Crant, 1993). In other words, proactive people

intentionally and stably affect the environment, seeking novelties and environmental

changes (Maddi, 1989). Then, we infer that proactivity is also related to risk-taking.

34

In fact, both the focus on the long-term and the active shaping of the present entail

present investment of resources, in front of future and uncertain outcomes. As a

demonstration, proactivity is correlated with entrepreneurship (Crant, 1996; Nicolaou

et al., 2008), risk-taking activity (Lawrence et al., 2008). In conclusion we

hypothesize a positive correlation between the endophenotype proactivity and the

DRD4 7R. In fact, among others, proactivity and DRD4 7R share positive correlations

with the personal trait of extraversion (Reuter & Hennig, 2005; Wanberg &

Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).

Hypothesis:

H9: the presence of the endophenotype proactivity is positively correlated with

7-variant DRD4

People that exhibit a non-proactive behavior tend to react to the environment, and

adjust to its evolving, rather than actively change it (Bateman & Crant, 1993). As a

consequence, we infer that they possess a short-term focus that fosters a proclivity

towards reactive strategies. On the other hand, long-term focus, i.e., intended

realization for a pre-planned outcome (Bateman & Crant, 1999), is related to a

tendency towards realizing environmental changes, in other words, to proactive

behaviors (Bateman & Crant, 1999). Furthermore, we infer a relation between the

short-term focus and the difficulties in adapt cognitive strategies (Bagozzi et al.,

2011), since the latter support the former. In conclusion, we hypothesize a positive

correlation between the absence of endophenotype proactivity and the gene DRD2

A1.

35

Hypothesis:

H10: The absence of the endophenotype proactivity is positively correlated

with A1 variant DRD2

36

37

METHOD

In order to test the stated hypothesis we analyze a sample of 64 business-to-business

salespeople coming form a variety of firms across different industries and

participating in an executive education program at the collaborating University. More

specifically, 4% are working in automotive industry, 3% in food and beverage, 13%

in banking, 3% in utilities, 8% in manufacturing, 31% in professional services, 4% in

pharmaceuticals, 2% in telecom, 5% in logistics, 16% in IT, 3% in retailing, 3% in

energy and the remaining 5% in other industries. The sample is composed by 71%

men, 29% women, with an average age of 36.3 (s.d.=9.1) and a relevant experience in

selling activity of 10.4 years (s.d.=8.0).

Firstly, we assess salespeople’s score on customer orientation and sales orientation;

secondly, we measure their attitude towards behavioral tendencies such as sensation

seeking, embarrassability, and proactivity. Thirdly, we investigated their genetic

make-up through DNA analysis in order to scan the presence of particular genes

involved in behavioral conditioning: the dopamine neurotransmitters DRD4 7R and

DRD2 A1. Lastly, we ran statistical analysis so as to check the hypothesized

correlations among behaviors (phenotype), personal traits (endophenotype), and

genetic (genotype) (see model).

We used the SOCO scale developed by Bagozzi et al (2011): a ten-item short-form

scale, in which five items measure sales orientation, and five items the customer

orientation. Using confirmatory factor analysis the scholars showed that a two-factors

38

SOCO model fit their data well (see table 1). Initially we use the same SOCO scale,

however, we found out that nine out of ten item worked well and load sufficiently

high to properly constitute a factor. As a result, we dropped item number two in the

customer orientation short-form scale since it loaded only 0.096 with the CO factor.

The remaining items' loadings ranged between 0.600 and 0.850 in CO and SO factors.

The two formed factors, i.e., SO and CO, explain more than 70% of the variance of

the sample, thus, are considered efficient. The items composing the factors are

relevantly correlated among themselves and uncorrelated among the others. The CO

factor’s alpha is 0,750, while the SO factor’s one is 0,820. So that, there is sufficiently

high internal consistency between the data, and the SO-CO factors effectively

measure single unidimensional latent constructs. The new-formed factors correlated

0,200. In conclusion, the factors achieve discriminant validity and we confirm the

SOCO scale presented by Bagozzi et al (2011).

The sensation-seeking questionnaire is composed by eight items (see technical

appendix), which reveal one latent unidimensional construct (Cronbach’s alpha =

0,820) and it is well represented by one factor (more than 60% of the variance). The

factor loadings range sufficiently high.

The proactivity questionnaire is composed by seventeen items (see technical

appendix). They underline one latent and unique dimension (Cronbach’s alpha =

0,855) and it could be effectively represented by one factor.

39

The embarrassability questionnaire is composed by eight items (see technical

appendix). They relevantly underline one latent and unique dimension (alpha =

0.700).

The DNA analysis revels the presence of specific genes: we looked for the DRD4 7R

and DRD2 A1, following recommended practices to gather DNA data and analysis,

and allele frequencies analysis using the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium. More

specifically, 20 salespeople possess the first gene (14 men and 6 women), whereas 21

possess the second one (18 men and 3 women). We used parametric t-test for equality

of means on the four-items CO scale and five-items SO scale and DRD2 A1 and

DRD4 7R polymorphism of participants.

40

RESULTS

First of all, we checked possible correlations among the variables: we found out that

two endophenotypes are positively correlated, namely, sensation-seeking and

proactivity. More specifically, they register a correlation of almost 0.4, with a

significance of 0.003. Thus, proactive and sensation-seeking behaviors are somehow

connected and present an increasing linear correlation in almost all the salespeople

sample (more than 99,99% of the cases). Unfortunately, the correlation matrix did not

reveal any other significant relations among the variables.

Secondly, we ran linear regressions in order to check which variables determine a

significant effect on the salespeople Customer Orientation or Sales Orientation. More

specifically, we failed to create a model composed by endophenotypes able to

determine and affect the final salespeople’s behavior in terms of customer orientation

or sales orientation. However, we did find out some significant and relevant

correlations.

We did confirm the positive correlation between proactivity and sensation-seeking

presented in the correlation matrix. Representing more than 12% of cases, with a level

of significance of 99,94%, proactive behavior determines an increase in sensation-

seeking behavior of a coefficient of +0.338. Same effect and same significance are

registered for the effect of sensation seeking trait in proactive behavior. To sum up,

we appreciate the existence of a positive correlation between the two personal traits,

expressing the likelihood of a combined presence in people. In other words, proactive

41

people are more likely to be sensation seeking. On the other hand, we register no

significant relation between the endophenotype embarrassability and other

variables/behaviors.

The second important correlation we discovered affects the correlation between

sensation-seeking behavior and Sales Orientation. Explaining a total variance of more

than 8% of the cases, with a level of significance greater than 96%, the sensation

seeking behavior decreases the Sales Orientation by 0.264. In other words, we

highlight the opposition between Sales Orientation and sensation seeking behavior,

partially confirming the statistically insignificant positive relation between the

endophenotype and the Consumer Orientation.

The genetic analysis involves t-tests, used to compare the average score of

respondents in terms of the different variables that constitute the model (i.e.,

endophenotypes and phenotypes), with and without the genetic variant. Significant

differences were found for the effects of DRD4 7R on Customer Orientation. More

specifically, with a significance level of 98%, salespeople that possess the 7-repeat

form score on average higher (M=6.6) on the CO scale, than those without it (M=6.2).

This result is in strong accordance with what discovered by Bagozzi et al (2011).

The second relevant and significant correlation found out in the present dataset

establishes a link between the presence of DRD2 A1 and a lower score on sensation

seeking. More specifically, salespeople that possess this gene score significantly

lower (M=4.8) on sensation seeking scale than those who do not possess it (M=4.0),

42

with a significance level of 97,5%. In other words, possessors of gene DRD2-A1 are

more likely to have a behavior less sensation seeking than others.

43

DISCUSSION

The concept of Customer Orientation finds its origin in late 1970’s when Kurtz,

Dodge and Klompmaker described the efficiency of a problem-solving sales

approach. Then, scholars subtly defined the concept by adding the focus on offering

solutions to customers, and concepts such as understanding customers’ needs and

delivering value in the long-term. Later on, academics opposed the customer

orientation to the sales orientation, as explained by Robert Saxe and Barton Weitz in

their landmark paper (1982). In addition, long-term customers’ satisfaction,

consumer-centric behavior, avoidance of deceptive or manipulative tactics became

expression of the Customer Orientation approach. Lastly, scholars found correlations

between it and positive sales performance, needs-satisfaction, and building relations

with customers (see 2nd chapter for more information).

To sum up, scholars profoundly described the customer orientation, applying an

outside-in approach. As opposed to them, Bagozzi et al (2011) used the opposite

method: an inside-out analysis that aims to define a stronger and more stable

foundation of Customer Orientation. By doing so, they pinpointed out correlations not

only with behavior and attitudes, but also with psychological traits, endophenotypes

and biomarkers. Specifically, they found customer orientation correlated with

empathy, opportunity-recognition and knowledge-brokering activities,

entrepreneurship’s spirit, and, genetically speaking, the DRD4 7R gene.

44

Following Bagozzi et al (2011) approach and analysis, we aimed to create and test

links between the phenotype Customer Orientation, a model composed by

endophenotypes, i.e., proactivity, sensation seeking and embarrassability, and specific

genes involved in behavioral conditioning, DRD4 7R and DRD2 A1. In other words,

the major aim of this study is to provide a clear, deep and stable explanation of why

salespeople engage in this sales approach, not limiting the analysis on how they do it.

First, we measure salespeople’s attitudes toward customer orientation and sales

orientation, assessing their score on a validated short-form SOCO scale; then we

assess their proclivity towards specific behavioral tendencies expressed by the chosen

endophenotypes. Lastly, we measure the presence of specific genes and their

influence in terms of sales orientation.

Endophenotypes analysis

We hypothesized that sensation-seeking salespeople more easily engage in a customer

orientated sales approach since these activities are similar and complementary. In fact,

both of them involve taking risks in discovering something new and liking that

process. Sensation seeking by definition; customer orientation since it requires to (1)

bet on uncertain long-term sales rather than focusing on short-term results, and (2)

spend time on gathering information in order to play the knowledge-broker role

during sales encounter. Then, according to literature, customer orientation is related to

opportunity recognition, as well as to novelty seeking, characteristic of sensation-

seeking tendency. In conclusion, we suggested a positive correlation between

45

customer orientation and sensation seeking and negative one between sales orientation

and the specific endophenotype.

We failed to demonstrate the positive link, but we did validate the negative relation

between sensation seeking and sales orientation: the presence of the endophentype

reduces and has a negative effect on sales orientation. In other words, the more a

salespeople is sensation-seekers, the less s/he engages in the sales orientated

approach. In fact, sales oriented salespeople do not look for novelty and demonstrate

no passion and/or curiosity towards the clients and their needs. They are not interested

in discovering the particular customers’ situation and how to fully solve their

problems with products offered by the firm. They are focused on the immediate

objective of achieve the sales, whatever are the product and the customer. They push

the sales and refuse to take risks and invest time and effort in building long-lasting

relationships. Then, they are less likely to engage in opportunity recognition activity,

since it requires passion and natural interest toward customers’ needs. On the other

hand, sensation seekers look for novelty and naturally have passion and willingness to

take risk in order to discover, understand, and solve it. In addition, they are likely to

take risks and invest time and effort so as to build a long-term relation with

customers. As a consequence, (1) we validate the negative correlation between the

endophenotype and the sales orientation, and (2) we infer the statistical insignificant

positive link between the endophenotype sensation seeking and the customer

orientation.

The second relevant relation that we obtain form the current dataset regards the

correlation between sensation seeking and proactivity. More specifically, it appears

46

that the presence of these two endophenotypes is combined: the more a person is

sensation seeker, the more s/he is proactive. In fact, we can conclude that sensation

seekers need to be proactive in order to fulfill their natural proclivity: looking for

novelty and demonstrating passion toward its discovery and understanding require a

proactive behavior, intended toward a pre-planned environmental change. Moreover,

both endophenotypes share a strong focus on long-term, since both of them entail a

demanding process toward their realization. To sum up, we validate a strong

correlation between sensation seeking and proactivity.

Regarding the endopheotype embarrassability we did not find out any relevant

correlations, not in terms of SOCO, not in terms of other endophenotypes. Thus, we

conclude that it is not relevant as component of sales orientation or customer

orientation. However, we did observe that most of salespeople have a very low score

on embarrassability scale (M=2,6 s.d.=0,6), while they still reveal a medium-high

level of empathy, that we deduce form they high score on customer orientation. As a

consequence, we infer that, even if in the past they had a medium-high level of

embarrassability, with time and experiences, salespeople have learned how to cope

with it, making it irrelevant during sales transaction. They still use their empathic

ability to understand customers’ needs and perceive their pain, but, most likely due to

developed work routines, they do not express their embarrassability and do not let its

protective reactions influence the sales.

In conclusion, we tested a model composed by endophenotypes, in order to explain

and analyze the customer and sales orientation. We found out that basically two

personal traits are considered combined characteristics of the customer orientation:

47

sensation seeking and proactivity. In fact, their presence is strongly related to each

others and sensation seeking resulted negatively correlated to sales orientation.

Sensation seeking salespeople tend to be proactive and demonstrate higher score on

customer orientation. They possess natural interest and curiosity in discovering

something new (e.g., customers’ situation and their needs) and are willing take risks

and invest time and effort in building a trustworthy relationship with the customers.

More importantly, we suggest that they developed a proactive behavior and attitude

that make them able to express their sensation seeking nature, also in their

relationship with the customers. On the other hand, salespeople that do not have a

natural proclivity in discovering the customers, are not wiling to take risk and support

cost opportunity in order to achieve a better and long-term sales relationship. They do

not possess a proactive behavior, since they are just focused on the short-term

objective to achieve the sales and are not interested in realize substantial change in the

circumstances. Lastly, they are willing just to push the customers to buy, even if the

product is not the complete answer to customers’ needs.

Genetic analysis

To further validate the customer orientation, we checked the presence of specific

genes and their effects on the endophenotypes and on customer/sales orientations. We

focused our research on genes that are well-known to affect people behavior:

dopamine neurotransmitters (for further details, see 2nd chapter). We controlled the

presence of the genes DRD4 7R and DRD2 A1 in the current salespeople sample and

we did find significant correlations.

48

We did not validate the studied correlations between sensation seeking and DRD4 7R

gene, not even the hypothesized relation with proactivity. However, we found out

relevant the relation between this gene and the customer orientation. Specifically,

possessors of the gene score significantly higher on customer orientation scale. We

are not able to validate the link genotype-endophenotype-phenotype, but we do are

able to highlight the significant presence of a particular genetic make-up in terms of

customer orientation. We are not sure from the sample’s analysis about how these

genes influence the behavior and choices of its possessors, but we did successfully

replicate Bagozzi et al (2011) findings, which explicitly show the strong influence of

genes in terms of customer orientation.

The other significant observation regards the link between DRD2 A1 and the

endophenotype sensation seeking: possessors of the gene have substantially a

behavior less sensation seeking than the others. The explanation could be that its

possessors look for immediate gratification, with a short-term focus on impulsive

objective achievement. On the other hand, sensation-seeking activities require more

commitment, a longer-term focus, and higher level of engagement. As a result,

possessors of the genes are less likely to engage in sensation seeking activities and, in

turn, in customer orientated sales approach. Following the trend, we also infer less

attitude toward proactive behaviors since the short-term focus forces the possessors of

the gene to avoid big changes of the circumstances where they are.

Conclusion

49

We studied different endophenotypes and genes, we made assumptions and we tested

their influences on behavior and attitudes. In conclusion, after careful analysis, we are

able to better define and further explain the consumer orientation and sales

orientation, taking insights not only for behavioral science, but also from

endocrinology, psychology and genetic.

The customer orientation is a particular sales approach that requires a specific

tendencies and attitudes. Studies highlighted particular genetic make-up that allows

salespeople to engage in this particular sales method. DRD4 7R possessors tend

naturally to be curious and active in investigating novelties. They are able to engage

and invest time end efforts in risky activities since their dopamine neurotransmitter

needs a higher dopamine intake, but permits longer time to achieve it. In other words,

their genetic make-up allows them to focus on longer-term objectives and more

engaging and risky activities. Both sensation seeking and proactive behaviors require

investment in time- and effort-consuming activities, long-run focus and natural

engagement towards them. Then, these activities strongly match what is today

required by salespeople’s role: knowledge brokering and opportunity-recognition

need time, effort, and natural curiosity in order to be investigated, understood and

realized. Thus, salespeople that possess this particular genetic make-up are free to

naturally engage in the customer orientation in the long run. In conclusion, we suggest

that salespeople that possess the DRD4 7R are naturally and better able to engage in

behavioral tendencies, such as sensation seeking and proactive behaviors and, in

turns, knowledge brokering and opportunity recognition, that make them more natural

customer oriented salespeople.

50

On the other hand, the sales orientation has a different genetic and endophenotypes

structure as well. More specifically, the genetic conformation forces them to achieve

immediate goals (i.e., sales), in order to have frequently releases of dopamine in their

brain. As a consequence, they are less likely to engage in activities that require a long-

term focus and are characteristics of customer orientation. These activates are:

investigating customers’ needs and study products’ attributes in order to successfully

match them (i.e., knowledge brokering), investing time and efforts in building a stable

relationship with customer, being able to sacrifice short-term result for better long run

results. As a result, people that possess the DRD2 A1 are less sensation seeking, less

proactive and more likely to apply a sales oriented approach during sales encounter.

Managerial implications

As managerial implications we suggest actions for managers that hire and manage

sales forces. First of all, we suggest to work on different areas: firstly, on hiring;

secondly, on coaching who has been hired. For the first part, as suggested by the

presented findings, we recommend to assess salespersons’ natural tendency toward

different sales approach. This can be done using questionnaires created in order to

measure the subject’s customer orientation and sales orientation. Then, the analysis

can shift to the evaluation of their level of proactivity and sensation seeking. We

propose to hire subjects that demonstrate high level of proactivity, sensation seeking

and customer orientation. Most likely, they would possess the DRD4 7R gene and

most likely will be genetically willing to apply the customer orientation over time. On

the other hand, also sales oriented salespeople could achieve discrete sales results,

51

especially in the short-term. However, we would advise that the current sales

environment requires salespeople to possess some abilities and behavioral tendencies

that in the long term substantially affect the sales performance. Today, salespeople

need to be proactive, knowledge broker, sensation seekers, passionate and curious

about the customers and products’ features, thus, able to recognize the sales

opportunity. The genetic make-up cannot be changed and a particular form of it can

naturally allow people to engage in the described behavior. In fact, the action of

coaching cannot make people different, it can just fine-tune and help them live

themselves in a more efficient way.

In terms of coaching, we would recommend first of all to analyze the personal

salesman’s situation in terms of orientations and behavioral tendencies. After that, the

coach can better define the area that needs to be improved. Then, it could be useful to

keep in mind the particular characteristics of each tendency, in order to better handle

it. For example, the sensation seeking behavior presents one relevant side effect:

salespeople risk to enamor of the just discovering novelties, omitting to persevere on

achieving the sales as a result of a trustworthy sales relationship with the customer.

As a consequence, sales manager could find it useful to coach the salesman to be

focused on discovering the customer, as just a mean to better serve him/her with

firm’s products in the long run.

52

APPENDIX

Tables from SPSS

53

T-test for DRD4-7R and Customer Orientation

54

T-test for DRD2-A1 and sensation seeking behavior

55

56

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

SOCO short-form scale

Customer Orientation

1. I try to get customers to discuss their needs with me.

2. I try to find out what kind of product would be most helpful to a customer.

3. I try to bring a customer with a problem together with a product that helps him

solve the problem.

4. I try to give customers an accurate expectation of what the product will do for

them.

5. I try to figure out what a customer’s needs are.

Sales Orientation

1. I try to sell a customer all I can convince hi to buy, even it I think it is more

than a wise customer would buy.

2. I try to sell as much as I can rather than satisfy a customer.

3. If I am not sure a product is right for a customer, I will still apply pressure to

get him to buy.

4. I paint too rosy a picture of my products, to make them sound as good as

possible.

5. It is necessary to stretch the truth in describing a product to a customer.

57

Sensation-seeking questionnaire (7-points Likert scale)

Sensation seeking questions (agree-disagree)

1.     I would like to explore strange places

2.     I get restless when I spend too much time at home

3.     I like to do frightening things

4.     I like wild parties

5.     I would like to take off on a trip with no pre-planned routes or timetables

6.     I prefer friends who are excitingly unpredictable

7.     I would like to try bungee jumping

8. I would love to have new and exciting experiences, even if they are illegal     

Proactivity questionnaire (7-points Likert scale)

Proactivity (agree-disagree)

1.     I am constantly on the outlook for new ways to improve my life

2.     I feel driven to make a difference in my community, and maybe the world

3.     I tend to led others take the initiative to start new projects

4.     Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change

5.     I enjoy facing and overcoming obstacles to my ideas

6.     Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality

7.     If I see something I don’t like, I fix it

8.     No matter what odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen

9.     I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others’ opposition

58

10.  I excel at identifying opportunities

11.  I am always looking for better ways to do things

12.  If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen

13.  I love to challenge status quo

14.  When I have a problem, I tackle it head-on

15.  I am great in turning problems into opportunities

16.  I can spot a good opportunity long before others can

17.  If I see someone in trouble, I help out in any way I can

Embarrassability questionnaire (7-Likert points scale)

Below are listed a number of social situations. Try to imagine that each of these

events is happening to you. Then, state how embarrassed you would feel by using the

scale below to describe your own reaction. Each statement is followed by seven

choices, in which you can indicate in what degree you would feel embarrassment.

1.     Suppose you were just beginning a talk in front of the class

2.     Suppose you slipped and fell on a patch of ice in a public place, dropping a

package of groceries

3.     Suppose you discovered you were the only person at a particular social occasion

without a coat and tie (or dress)

4.     Suppose you were muttering aloud to yourself in an apparently empty room and

discovered someone else was present

5.     Suppose you entered an apparently empty classroom, turned on the lights, and

59

surprised a couple necking

6.     Suppose you were a dinner guest and could not eat the main course because you

were allergic to it

7.     Suppose you were walking into a room full of people you did not know and were

being introduces to the whole group

8.     Suppose you were conversing in a small group which included a blind student,

when someone next to him unthinkingly made a remark about everyone being “blind

as a bad

60

References:

Anderson, R. E. (1996). Personal selling and sales management in the new millennium. The Journal of

Personal Selling and Sales Management, 17–32.

Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Berg, W. E. van den, Rietdijk, W. J. R., & Dietvorst, R. C.

(2011). Genetic and neurological foundations of customer orientation: field and experimental

evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–20.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure

and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1999). Proactive behavior: Meaning, impact, recommendations.

Business Horizons, 42(3), 63–70.

Bell, N. E., & Staw, B. M. (1989). People as sculptors versus sculpture: the roles of personality and

personal control in organizations. Handbook of career theory, 232.

Boles, J. S., Babin, B. J., Brashear, T. G., & Brooks, C. (2001). An examination of the relationships

between retail work environments, salesperson selling orientation-customer orientation and

job performance. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 1–13.

Bonney, F. L., & Williams, B. C. (2009). From products to solutions: the role of salesperson

opportunity recognition. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 1032–1052.

Bosworth, M. T. (1995). Solution selling: Creating buyers in difficult selling markets. McGraw-Hill.

Brems, C. (1989). Dimensionality of empathy and its correlates. Journal of Psychology:

Interdisciplinary and Applied; Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied.

Brown, T. J., Mowen, J. C., Donavan, D. T., & Licata, J. W. (2002). The customer orientation of

service workers: Personality trait effects on self-and supervisor performance ratings. Journal

of Marketing Research, 110–119.

Bursk, E. C. (2006). Low-pressure selling. Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8), 150.

Churchill Jr, G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W., & Walker Jr, O. C. (1985). The determinants of

salesperson performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing research, 103–118.

Crant, J. M. (1996). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal

of Small Business Management, 34(3).

Dawson, S., Bloch, P. H., & Ridgway, N. M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail

outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408–427.

61

Dhar, R., Menon, A., & Maach, B. (2004). Toward extending the compromise effect to complex

buying contexts. Journal of marketing research, 258–261.

Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., & van der Lugt, A. (2009).

A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of its validity by classical methods and

functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 653–668.

Ding, Y. C., Chi, H. C., Grady, D. L., Morishima, A., Kidd, J. R., Kidd, K. K., Flodman, P., et al.

(2002). Evidence of positive selection acting at the human dopamine receptor D4 gene locus.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(1), 309.

Dreber, A., Apicella, C. L., Eisenberg, D. T. A., Garcia, J. R., Zamore, R. S., Lum, J. K., & Campbell,

B. (2009). The 7R polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 gene (DRD4) is associated

with financial risk taking in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 85–92.

Dreber, A., Rand, D. G., Garcia, J. R., Wernerfelt, N., Lum, J. K., & Zeckhauser, R. (2010). Dopamine

and risk preferences in different domains. Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research

Working Paper Series.

Eades, K. M. (2004). The New Solution Selling: The Revolutionary Sales Process That Is Changing

the. McGraw-Hill.

Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., Bennett, E. R., et al. (1996).

Dopamine D4 receptor (D4DR) exon III polymorphism associated with the human personality

trait of novelty seeking. Nature genetics, 12(1), 78–80.

Edmondson, A. C., & Woolley, A. W. (2003). Understanding outcomes of organizational learning

interventions. International handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management.

London: Blackwell, 185–211.

Flaherty, T. B., Dahlstrom, R., & Skinner, S. J. (1999). Organizational values and role stress as

determinants of customer-oriented selling performance. The journal of personal selling and

sales management, 1–18.

Franke, G. R., & Park, J. E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: a

meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 693–702.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st

century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133–188.

Freud, S., Dufresne, T., & Richter, G. C. (2011). Beyond the pleasure principle. Broadview Pr.

62

Giacobbe, R. W., Jackson Jr, D. W., Crosby, L. A., & Bridges, C. M. (2006). A contingency approach

to adaptive selling behavior and sales performance: Selling situations and salesperson

characteristics. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 26(2), 115–142.

Gottesman, I. I., & Gould, T. D. (2005). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry. Etymology and

strategic intentions, in advances in genetics and genomics: implications for psychiatry.

American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington DC, 63–84.

Gottesman, I. I., & Shields, J. (1973). Genetic theorizing and schizophrenia. The British Journal of

Psychiatry, 122(566), 15–30.

Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational

behavior, 28(1), 3–34.

Harris, E. G., Mowen, J. C., & Brown, T. J. (2005). Re-examining salesperson goal orientations:

personality influencers, customer orientation, and work satisfaction. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 33(1), 19–35.

Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability

and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences,

32(3), 401–414.

Jaramillo, F., Ladik, D. M., Marshall, G. W., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). A meta-analysis of the relationship

between sales orientation-customer orientation (SOCO) and salesperson job performance.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 22(5), 302–310.

Johannsen, W. (1909). Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Fischer.

Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2005). Relationship selling and sales management. McGraw-

Hill/Irwin.

Jordan, J., & Cartwright, S. (1998). Selecting expatriate managers: Key traits and competencies.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(2), 89–96.

Joshi, A. W., & Randall, S. (2001). The indirect effects of organizational controls on salesperson

performance and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 54(1), 1–9.

Kelley, A. E. (2004). Ventral striatal control of appetitive motivation: role in ingestive behavior and

reward-related learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(8), 765–776.

63

Kelley, A. E., Schiltz, C. A., & Landry, C. F. (2005). Neural systems recruited by drug-and food-

related cues: studies of gene activation in corticolimbic regions. Physiology & behavior, 86(1-

2), 11–14.

Kotler, P. (1972). A generic concept of marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 46–54.

Kuhnen, C. M., & Chiao, J. Y. (2009). Genetic determinants of financial risk taking. PLoS One, 4(2),

e4362.

Lawrence, A., Clark, L., Labuzetta, J. N., Sahakian, B., & Vyakarnum, S. (2008). The innovative brain.

Nature, 456(7219), 168–169.

Leigh, T. W., Pullins, E. B., & Comer, L. B. (2001). The top ten sales articles of the 20th century. The

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 217–227.

Li, D., Sham, P. C., Owen, M. J., & He, L. (2006). Meta-analysis shows significant association

between dopamine system genes and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Human

molecular genetics, 15(14), 2276–2284.

Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV< sup>∗</sup> OR: A managerial measure

of organizational service-orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 455–489.

Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis . Dorsey Press.

McBane, D. A. (1995). Empathy and the salesperson: A multidimensional perspective. Psychology and

Marketing, 12(4), 349–370.

Michel, S., Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Reconfiguration of the conceptual landscape: a tribute

to the service logic of Richard Normann. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1),

152–155.

Miller, R. S. (1997). Embarrassment: Poise and peril in everyday life. The Guilford Press.

Modigliani, A. (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry, 313–326.

Munafò, M. R., Yalcin, B., Willis-Owen, S. A., & Flint, J. (2008). Association of the dopamine D4

receptor (DRD4) gene and approach-related personality traits: meta-analysis and new data.

Biological Psychiatry, 63(2), 197–206.

Netter, P. (2006). Dopamine challenge tests as an indicator of psychological traits. Human

Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 21(2), 91–99.

Neve, K. A. (2009). The dopamine receptors. Humana Pr Inc.

64

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and

subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 367–408.

Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Adi, G., Mangino, M., & Harris, J. (2011). A polymorphism associated with

entrepreneurship: evidence from dopamine receptor candidate genes. Small Business

Economics, 36(2), 151–155.

Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency to engage in

entrepreneurship genetic? Management Science, 54(1), 167–179.

Noblett, K. L., & Coccaro, E. F. (2005). Molecular genetics of personality. Current psychiatry reports,

7(1), 73–80.

Novicevic, M. M., & Harvey, M. G. (2001). The emergence of the pluralism construct and the

inpatriation process. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(3), 333–356.

Peterson, R. L. (2005). The neuroscience of investing: fMRI of the reward system. Brain research

bulletin, 67(5), 391–397.

Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S., & Taylor, A. J. (2002). The influence of salesperson skill, motivation,

and training on the practice of customer-oriented selling. Psychology and Marketing, 19(9),

743–757.

Rackham, N., & DeVincentis, J. (1998). Rethinking the sales force: Refining selling to create and

capture customer value. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reuter, M., & Hennig, J. (2005). Association of the functional catechol-O-methyltransferase

VAL158MET polymorphism with the personality trait of extraversion. Neuroreport, 16(10),

1135.

Rieser, C. (1962). The Salesman Isn’t Dead-He’s Different. Fortune, 66(5), 124–7.

Roiser, J. P., de Martino, B., Tan, G. C. Y., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., Wood, N. W., & Dolan, R. J.

(2009). A genetically mediated bias in decision making driven by failure of amygdala control.

The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(18), 5985–5991.

Rozell, E. J., Pettijohn, C. E., & Parker, R. S. (2004). Customer-oriented selling: Exploring the roles of

emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 21(6),

405–424.

Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO scale: a measure of the customer orientation of

salespeople. Journal of marketing research, 343–351.

65

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: occupational

attainment and job performance. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1), 162.

Schneider, B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Research in

organizational behavior.

Schultz, W. (2007). Behavioral dopamine signals. Trends in neurosciences, 30(5), 203–210.

Semin, G. R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1982). The social implications of embarrassment displays and

restitution behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 367–377.

Siguaw, J. A., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (1994). The influence of the market orientation of the firm

on sales force behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marketing research, 106–116.

Simester, D. I., Hauser, J. R., Wernerfelt, B., & Rust, R. T. (2000). Implementing quality improvement

programs designed to enhance customer satisfaction: Quasi-experiments in the United States

and Spain. Journal of Marketing Research, 102–112.

Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., Yau, O. H. M., Chow, R. P. M., Lee, J. S. Y., & Lau, L. B. Y. (2005).

Relationship marketing orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal

of Business Research, 58(2), 185–194.

Singh, R., & Koshy, A. (2011). Does salesperson’s customer orientation create value in B2B

relationships? Empirical evidence from India. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(1), 78–

85.

Singh, R., & Koshy, A. (2012). A new conceptualization of salesperson’s customer orientation:

Propositions and implications. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(1), 69–82.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of personality and social

psychology, 30(4), 526.

Stremersch, S., & Van Dyck, W. (2009). Marketing of the life sciences: A new framework and research

agenda for a nascent field. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 4–30.

Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective

selling. The Journal of Marketing, 39–52.

Swanson, J., Oosterlaan, J., Murias, M., Schuck, S., Flodman, P., Spence, M. A., Wasdell, M., et al.

(2000). Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder children with a 7-repeat allele of the dopamine

receptor D4 gene have extreme behavior but normal performance on critical

66

neuropsychological tests of attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

97(9), 4754.

Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W. (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,

pride, and embarrassment. New York: Guilford Press.

Tanner, R. J., Ferraro, R., Chartrand, T. L., Bettman, J. R., & Van Baaren, R. (2008). Of chameleons

and consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice and preferences. Journal of Consumer

Research, 34(6), 754–766.

Thakor, M. V., & Joshi, A. W. (2005). Motivating salesperson customer orientation: insights from the

job characteristics model. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 584–592.

Thompson, J., Thomas, N., Singleton, A., Piggott, M., Lloyd, S., Perry, E. K., Morris, C. M., et al.

(1997). D2 dopamine receptor gene (DRD2) Taq1 A polymorphism: reduced dopamine D2

receptor binding in the human striatum associated with the A1 allele. Pharmacogenetics, 7(6),

479.

Tuli, K., Kohli, A., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles

to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.

Verbeke, W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). A situational analysis on how salespeople experience and cope

with shame and embarrassment. Psychology and Marketing, 19(9), 713–741.

Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales performance: a contemporary meta-

analysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, 39(3), 407–428.

Verbeke, W. J., Belschak, F. D., Bakker, A. B., & Dietz, B. (2008). When intelligence is (dys)

functional for achieving sales performance. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 44.

Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the

socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 373.

Widmier, S. (2002). The effects of incentives and personality on salesperson’s customer orientation.

Industrial Marketing Management, 31(7), 609–615.

Williams, M. R., & Attaway, J. S. (1996). Exploring salespersons’ customer orientation as a mediator

of organizational culture’s influence on buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Personal

Selling and Sales Management, 33–52.

67

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of

their work. Academy of Management Review, 179–201.

Zuckerman, M. (1971). Dimensions of sensation seeking. Journal of consulting and clinical

psychology, 36(1), 45.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ.

Zuckerman, M. (2004). The shaping of personality: Genes, environments, and chance encounters.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(1), 11–22.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America:

Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology;

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139.

68