Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Engaging a product-focused sales force in solution selling: interplay of individual- and organizational-level conditions

Engaging a product-focused sales force in solution selling: interplay of individual- and... This study explains how manufacturers tackle the critical managerial challenge of transforming a product-focused sales force to undertake solution selling. Through an application of configurational theory, the authors explain how individual and organiza- tional conditions combine to determine salespeople’s engagement in solution selling. Multilevel, multisource data from the sales organization of a global supplier of building solutions represent input from salespeople (N = 184), solution champions (N =23), and sales managers (N = 26). A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis reveals no single, optimal way to overcome transfor- mation challenges. Rather, consistent with prior research, solution selling requires certain types of salespeople, because value- based selling is a necessary condition for successful engagement. Beyond this foundational condition, a heterogeneous sales force can be engaged, as long as the organization provides appropriate support that is tailored to individual salespersons’ needs. The findings affirm that this viable support can come from either sales managers or solution champions. . . . . Keywords Business-to-business marketing Customer solutions Sales force transformation Sales management fsQCA Introduction selling (Ulaga and Reinartz 2011), leading some authors to speculate that companies might need to replace large portions The imperative to go “downstream” in the value chain is ob- of their sales forces to achieve their transformation, even vious for business-to-business (B2B) companies (Wise and though doing so is costly and would disrupt existing business Baumgartner 1999), which widely and frequently adopt a and sales routines (Reinartz and Ulaga 2008;Ulaga and solution-based business approach to do so (Panagopoulos Loveland 2014). In many cases, it is not even viable, such as et al. 2017). A majority of Fortune 100 firms have pursued when solution sales complement rather than replace product some kind of solution business strategy by increasing their sales (Storbacka 2011). However, prior academic literature service and solution offerings (Guido 2012;Ulaga and offers limited guidance for how to encourage product- Kowalkowski 2017)—initiatives that demand active partici- oriented salespeople to engage with solution selling. pation from sales forces (Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Reinartz Against this background, a key managerial consideration is and Ulaga 2008; Ulaga and Loveland 2014;Wormetal. finding ways to engage sales forces in the transformation from 2017). Boundary-spanning salespeople are pivotal for crafting product selling to solution selling. This complex transforma- the solution offering and communicating its value-in-use to tional context might encompass multiple routes to success customers (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuliet al. 2007). Yet (Ahearne et al. 2010), so we adopt configuration theory to most salespeople seemingly are reluctant to engage in solution develop a conceptual framework that explains how a situa- tional fit between transformation specific factors can encour- Vikas Mittal served as Area Editor for this article. age salesperson engagement in solution selling (Venkatraman 1989). We thus integrate configuration theory with prior find- * Anna Salonen ings pertaining to sales force transformations and solution anna.k.salonen@utu.fi selling to explain how various configurations of individual salesperson and organizational conditions might lead to great- University of Turku, Turku, Finland er salesperson engagement. For the empirical study, we rely on a long-term research collaboration with a European manu- TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany 3 facturer of intelligent building solutions that, during our Aalto University, Espoo, Finland 140 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 research period, was undergoing an organization-wide solu- support options that fit each salesperson’s situational needs. tion transformation process. We use multilevel, multisource Support might involve formal, management-led initiatives or empirical data to reflect and address both individual salesper- take the form of support provided by so-called solution son and organizational conditions, nested at three levels of the champions who engage in market-shaping activities on sales organization: salespersons, solution champions, and behalf of the selling firm (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen sales managers. Furthermore, we analyze these matched, et al. 2019; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). These solu- triadic data using fuzzy set qualitative comparative anal- tion champions influence established ways of thinking ysis (fsQCA), a highly relevant method that can reveal and doing among actors in the institutional environment explanatory combinations of conditions, such as those that surrounds the transformation to solution selling that explain salesperson engagement in solution selling (Hartmann et al. 2018). Salespeople’s risk perceptions (Fiss 2007;Ragin 2006). To frame the resulting in- also emerge as a core condition of solution selling en- sights, we establish two main research questions: (1) gagement, with considerable impacts on an individual Which conditions effectively encourage an industrial salesperson’s need for comprehensive organizational sales force to engage in solution selling? (2) How do support. individual and organizational conditions combine to fa- In the next section, we outline how we build on extant sales cilitate salespersons’ engagement in solution selling? force transformation and solution selling literature to derive a set In answering these questions, this study contributes to both of conditions that might explain when and why salespeople en- personal selling and solution selling literature. First, the results gage with solution selling. Then we introduce and apply config- advance understanding of effective implementations of sales uration theory to develop our conceptual framework, which re- force–wide planned changes in complex transformation con- flects the notion that individual salesperson and organizational texts (Ahearne et al. 2010;Hartmann et al. 2018). Most prior conditions combine to create situational fit and thus facilitate sales force transformation studies seek to detail a clear set of salesperson engagement in solution selling. In the methods sec- specific, exclusive transformation drivers that lead to the de- tion, we explain the specifics and application of fsQCA, detail sired outcomes when applied universally to sales forces (e.g., the empirical study context, and present the operationalization of Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and the study constructs. After outlining the results pertaining to the Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson and Sohi 2017). However, necessary and sufficient conditions for solution selling engage- Ahearne et al. (2010) suggest that salesperson transformation ment, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of paths are idiosyncratic, because salespersons differ fundamen- our findings and some options for further research. tally in their ability to change. Thus, whether a sales force– wide planned change succeeds likely depends on the organi- zation’s ability to offer support that fits each salesperson’s Sales force solution selling transformation situational needs, in the given transformation context. We take this notion of idiosyncrasy as a starting point and affirm that The phenomenon of a sales force solution selling trans- sales force transformation is contingent on tailored organiza- formation is remarkably complex. Two streams of re- tional support, designed to match diverse salespersons’ situa- search are primarily pertinent for understanding it. tional needs. Sales force transformation research deals with the fun- Second, we offer initial insights into the requirements for damental context, namely, managing sales force–wide engaging salespersons in solution selling. Only a handful of prior planned changes. The solution selling literature helps solution studies even consider the roles and activities of sales- establish how solution selling differs from product sell- people during solution transformations (Koponen et al. 2019; ing and the requirements that solutions demand during a Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Ulaga andKohli 2018;Ulaga and sales force transformation. We present extant findings Loveland 2014). Research has established that salespeople’sso- from these perspectives to identify gaps in knowledge, lution selling involvement is vital, because it increases both their then introduce configurational thinking to establish our own and customers’ performance (Panagopoulos et al. 2017), but proposed conceptual framework. the optimal tactics for ensuring salespeople’s engagement in so- lution selling in the first place remain unclear. Our results suggest Sales force transformation research that engaging salespeople who previously were responsible for product selling in solution selling is possible—as long as each Many studies consider sales force–wide planned change, yet salesperson’s specific threshold conditions, such as her or his the relevant knowledge remains fragmented across different ability to practice value-based selling, are identified and ad- types of transformation contexts and diverse theoretical per- dressed(Terhoetal. 2017). Furthermore, transforming firms spectives. To gain an overview of research insights into the must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to implementation of sales force–wide planned change (Ahearne facilitate engagement. Instead, they should develop and offer et al. 2010), we carried out an extensive review of leading 141 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 general marketing (JM, JMR, JAMS), as well as B2B sales Wieseke et al. 2008, 2009). That is, sales force–wide transfor- focused journals (JPSSM, IMM). mations appear to result from an interplay of individual sales- We identified 26 studies that pertain to a sales force trans- person and organizational drivers, and the latter incor- formation and 4 studies discussing more general transforma- porate both management and subtler forms of social tions within the selling discipline, as listed in Appendix influence by peers. Table 10. (Sales force transformation articles that focus spe- We also find that prior research offers competing premises cifically on solution selling are discussed in the next section.) regarding the heterogeneity of transformation paths—see The summary review in Appendix Table 10 serves two pur- Appendix Table 10. Most studies predict uniform transforma- poses. First, it reveals some key conditions that affect complex tion paths and seek to identify a clear set of transformation sales force transformations. Second, it demonstrates the dom- drivers that will lead to desired outcomes (e.g., Hayati et al. inant focus in prior research on uniform rather than heteroge- 2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015; neous transformations, which suggest the potential benefits of Johnson and Sohi 2017). Yet some studies highlight that configurational thinking for understanding effective salespeople differ fundamentally in their ability to change implementations of sales force transformations. and argue that the “successful implementation of planned Regarding relevant transformation conditions, the review change interventions largely depends on identifying and ap- indicates the need to understand unique drivers of change in preciating the heterogeneity of individual traits that share specific transformation contexts. Business markets are char- meaning with the change” (Ahearne et al. 2010, p. 65). acterized by fundamental shifts, related to sales strategies, Contributions that recognize salespeople’s individual transi- technologies, and customer expectations, all of which impose tion paths mainly adopt a narrow focus though, such as deter- notable pressures on B2B firms to respond with planned mining how salespeople differ in their ability to change change initiatives (Cuevas 2018; Hartmann et al. 2018; (Ahearne et al. 2010) or the role of single moderators in af- Sheth and Sharma 2008;Wotruba 1996). Sales force transfor- fecting salespersons’ ability to change (see Mullins et al. mation research investigates change management efforts in 2019; Terho et al. 2017;Zablah etal. 2012). Thus, we know three main transformation contexts: the implementation of fairly little about how to manage overall sales force transfor- firm strategy and culture (e.g., Johnson and Sohi 2017), sell- mations by taking the profiles of individual salespeople into ing new products (e.g., Fu et al. 2009), or the adoption of new account. technology by the sales force (e.g., Hunter and Panagopoulos This review of sales force transformation research in turn 2015)—see Appendix Table 10. These diverse contexts do not indicates that implementing a sales force–wide planned reveal any generic transformation drivers; rather, our review change in a complex transformation context (e.g., solution implies that successful transformations depend on the ade- selling) likely requires considerations of multiple drivers of quate management of specific drivers of change that pertain change that operate on multiple levels, both individual and to a particular transformation context. organizational. Furthermore, the drivers can initiate multiple Although the specific requirements and drivers of change possible transformation paths among the heterogeneous sales seem context specific, we note evidence of three key driver force, reflecting the various profiles of individual categories of sales force–wide planned change, related to the salespersons. The scarcity of empirical investigations of these individual salesperson, sales managers, and social heterogeneous transformation paths offers little evidence re- influences—see Appendix Table 10. First, transformations garding how these identified principles operate in practice. depend on individual salesperson characteristics related to Therefore, we also consider solution selling research in order change, such as attitudes, abilities, and behaviors (Ahearne to establish the nature of the specific transformation context et al. 2010; Johnson and Sohi 2017; van der Borgh and we study and identify some drivers that might facilitate sales- Schepers 2018; Wieseke et al. 2008). Second, sales manage- people’s engagement in solution selling. ment can drive change through its emphasis, leadership styles, information provision, sales tools, organizational resources, or Solution selling research training (Hayati et al. 2018; Morgan and Inks 2001;Terho et al. 2017; van der Borgh and Schepers 2018; Zablah et al. Among recent service and marketing studies of B2B solutions 2012). Third, social influence by experts, peers, leaders, or (Eggert et al. 2014; Macdonald et al. 2016,Worm et al. 2017), appointed champions can lead to change (Avlonitis and the majority focus on the underlying concept of business so- Panagopoulos 2005; Keränen and Liozu 2020; Lam 2010; lutions and general requirements for seller and customer firms. Only a handful of solution studies explicitly address the role and activities of salespersons (e.g., Koponen et al. 2019; We combined search terms pertaining to selling (“sales force” OR “salesper- Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Ulaga andKohli 2018; Ulaga and son” OR “sales organization” OR “selling”) with those related to transforma- Loveland 2014). To develop a foundation for understanding tion (“transformation” OR “change” OR “shift” OR “new” OR “implementa- tion”), which resulted in 689 matches. the requirements that underlie salesperson engagement in 142 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 solution selling, we turn to solution selling literature to devel- The identified requirements for solution selling refer to op three main insights (Table 1): (1) the concept of solution both the individual salesperson and organizational levels. selling, (2) individual and organizational requirements associ- Researchers generally agree that solution selling requires a ated with it, and (3) its outcomes. different type of salesperson than product selling (Ulaga Research that investigates the conceptofsolution and Reinartz 2011), and in turn, they have identified sev- selling explicates differences between solution and prod- eral skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can facilitate solu- uct selling. Customer solutions are more than bundles of tion selling. For example, among their skills, salespeople customized, integrated goods and services; they entail need general intelligence (Ulaga and Loveland 2014)and joint supplier–customer processes (Macdonald et al. communication competence (Koponen et al. 2019); in 2016;Tulietal. 2007). Solution selling thus comprises terms of attitudes, solution sellers benefit from a learning four relational stages: (1) customer requirement defini- orientation, intrinsic motivation, and teamwork orientation tion, (2) customization and integration of goods and/or (Ulaga and Loveland 2014). Finally, the ability to practice services, (3) deployment, and (4) post-deployment sup- value-based selling is a fundamental requirement of solu- port (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Qualitative studies also tion selling, because solutions ultimately build on the suggest that it differs substantially from traditional prod- value-in-use concept (Macdonald et al. 2016; Storbacka uct selling. Compared with product selling, solution 2011; Terho et al. 2012). Among the organizational re- selling demands a stronger focus on co-creation relative quirements identified for solution selling, we limit our to persuasion, fuzzier solution specifications, higher net- review to sales force issues. That is, solution selling work complexity, and stronger relationship orientations requires managerial activities that help implement solu- (Ulaga and Loveland 2014). In turn, salespeople have tion selling among the sales force, including the estab- greater needs to understand customers’ businesses, craft lishment of clear role expectations (Ulaga and Kohli solutions that fit customer needs, orchestrate between 2018) and specific training initiatives (Storbacka et al. supplier and customer stakeholders, and maintain a con- 2011). Moreover, solution selling is more effective tinuous relationship with customers (Friend and Malshe when cross-functional cooperation among coworkers ex- 2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Sheth and Sharma ists (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuli etal. 2007). 2008;Ulaga andKohli 2018). Organizational engagement at the customer interface Table 1 Key solution selling research Research Stream/Focus Main Findings Selected Articles Stream 1: Concept of solution selling Process-based definition Solution selling comprises four relational processes: Tuli et al. 2007; Panagopoulos et al. 2017 (1) customer requirement definition, (2) customization and integration of goods and/or services, (3) deployment, and (4) post-deployment support. Difference to product selling Solution selling differs from product selling with regard to Ulaga and Loveland 2014 (1) the underlying tenet (co-creation vs. persuasion), (2) requirement definition (fuzzy hybrid offering vs. customer-initiated, good-centric), (3) network complexity (multiple stakeholders in customer and vendor organization vs. limited number of stakeholders), and (4) outcome orientation (share growth and contract renewal vs. deal closing). Stream 2: Requirements posed by solution selling Salesperson-level requirements Solution selling requires a different type of salesperson with Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012; specific (a) skills, like general intelligence or communication Ulaga and Loveland 2014 competence; (b) attitudes, like learning orientation, intrinsic motivation, or teamwork orientation; and (c) behaviors, like value-based selling. Organizational-level requirements Solution selling is supported by managerial practices, such as Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Friendand communication of expectations, training, facilitation of Malshe 2016; Storbacka et al. 2011; cross-functional cooperation, and strengthening relationship ties Tuli et al. 2007; Ulaga and Kohli 2018 with key customer stakeholders Stream 3: Consequences of solution selling Consequences Salesperson solution involvement enhances (a) salesperson-level Panagopoulos et al. 2017 and (b) customer-level sales performance. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 143 also is important, and several authors suggest that organizational levels (Meyer et al. 1993). Its central notion of strong customer relationships and customer ecosystem– strategic fit implies that different conditions in a particular specific skills can be influential (Friend and Malshe context are not important intrinsically; rather, their criticality 2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuliet al. 2007). depends on how well they align (Venkatraman 1989). Finally, regarding the consequences of solution selling,so- Different conditions can form gestalts or coherent configura- lution selling literature has established that salespeople are tions (Ragin 2000) that lead to a specific outcome. The notion critical resources for achieving a successful solutions busi- of fit also entails several assumptions inherent to configuration ness. In particular, their solution involvement increases both theory, such as equifinality, causal asymmetry, and a distinc- salesperson-level and customer-level performance tion between necessary and sufficient conditions. Equifinality (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). suggests that multiple configurations of conditions can lead to Along with these important insights, our review suggests an outcome of interest (Doty et al. 1993). Causal asymmetry is two major gaps in the current solution selling literature. First, the notion that the same conditions can lead to different out- it tends to focus on the execution phase, to identify factors that comes, depending on how those conditions are arranged might enhance the effectiveness of solution selling practices (Ordanini et al. 2014). Moreover, configurational theory dis- (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Yet we lack a clear understanding tinguishes necessary conditions, which always must be pres- of what elements must be in place first, to ensure that sales- ent for an outcome to occur, from sufficient conditions,which people even become engaged in solution selling. Therefore, in may be present and, if so, help bring about the outcome. In this study, we address requirements for salespeople’ssolution sum, when conditions, relevant to the intended change, differ selling engagement, as a fundamental prerequisite of success- with the individual salesperson, salespeople still may achieve ful solution selling (Miao and Evans 2013; Verbeke et al. similar levels of solution selling engagement, as long as the 2011; Zablah et al. 2012). Engagement in a specific activity conditions fit, and some salesperson-specific, necessary is a central motivational concept, referring to a person’sin- threshold conditions exist, which ultimately cannot be com- vestment of energy into a task (e.g., Miao and Evans 2013; pensated for by greater alignment or fit. Rich et al. 2010). Similar to Zablah et al. (2012), we define To identify these relevant conditions, we rely on our review solution selling engagement as sales representatives’ invest- of sales force transformation and solution selling research. At ment of energy in the task, reflected in the time and effort they the individual salesperson level, we expect that prior solution devote to solution selling. selling experience makes it easier for salespeople to engage Second, existing research typically focuses on one or a few (Franke and Park 2006), because they gain skills and knowl- requirements of solution selling, without considering their in- edge related to applicable selling approaches, situations, and terplay. A sales force–wide transformation to solution selling customers (e.g., Spiro and Weitz 1990; Weitz et al. 1986). In is a tremendously complex undertaking though, and it is un- addition, their risk perceptions might create obstacles to sales- likely that any uniform, one-size-fits-all formula exists for people’s solution selling engagement. Perceptions of risks as- ensuring salesperson engagement. Therefore, we consider var- sociated with the sale of novel offerings can cause salespeople ious transformation conditions, operating at the levels of the to display conservatism (Sarin et al. 2012; van der Borgh and individual salesperson and the organization, and we investi- Schepers 2018). In a solution transformation context, risk per- gate how they might combine to facilitate salesperson solution ceptions might be especially prominent, because the transfor- selling engagement, using a configurational approach. mation requires salespeople to develop entirely new capabili- ties, even while they confront uncertainty about the market Configurational approach to salesperson solution acceptance of the new business model (Ulaga and Loveland selling engagement 2014). Moreover, solution selling engagement might require the salesperson’s ability to practice value-based selling To propose the conceptual framework in Fig. 1 that explains (Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012, 2017; Ulaga and salesperson solution selling engagement in solution transfor- Loveland 2014), because to achieve solution selling, customer mations, we integrate the preceding insights from sales force stakeholders need to perceive the supplier in its new role, as a transformation and solution selling research with configura- facilitator of the customer’s value-in-use processes tional theory (Venkatraman 1989). (MacDonald et al. 2016;Storbacka 2011). Configuration theory has been applied to a range of com- In terms of organizational conditions related to managers, plex, multidimensional phenomena at individual, group, and we draw on the theory of planned behavior and suggest that sales managers can encourage solution selling engagement by Solution selling engagement differs from solution selling involvement. The communicating role expectations about solutions and allocat- former captures the motivational core of solution selling; the latter pertains to ing resources to solution training (Fu et al. 2009, 2010; actual activities performed by salespeople, defined as “activities that help … Zoltners et al. 2001). Communicating role expectations estab- firms provide end-to-end solutions to the salesperson’scustomers” (Panagopoulos et al. 2017, p. 145). lishes subjective norms for new sales; solution training can 144 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Salesperson Conditions Organizational Conditions Management Solution Champions Solution Role experience expectations Risk Market FIT perceptions shaping behavior Value-based Training selling Salesperson Solution Selling Engagement Fig. 1 Conceptual framework enhance a salesperson’s sense of self-efficacy or beliefs in his configurations represent alternative pathways to engaging a or her ability to sell the new offering. heterogeneous sales force in solution selling in a complex In addition to these manager-related conditions, we incor- transformation context. porate social influences, in the form of solution champions’ market-shaping behavior. Recent sales literature recognizes that selling is embedded in broader social systems, in which Methodology institutional arrangements strongly influence exchange prac- tices (Hartmann et al. 2018). In our studied context for exam- We use fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) ple, customers might not be accustomed to enacting relational (Ragin 2008) to investigate the combinations of conditions solutions processes or could lack procurement practices con- that might facilitate solution selling engagement among a het- sistent with solutions buying. They also might not view the erogeneous sales force. fsQCA “bridges quantitative and qual- product seller as a legitimate actor in the solutions selling itative approaches” (Ragin 2008, p.82) and ismostsuitedto context, such that they are unwilling to adjust their resource identify combinations of multiple conditions that lead to a integration practices toward this seller. Thus, sellers likely desired outcome (Kraus et al. 2018). Unlike more quantitative need to shape customer’s mindsets and practices purposefully, approaches which build on correlations, fsQCA examines log- to be consistent with solutions buying. In turn, salespeople ical connections between conditions and an outcome to deter- might benefit from input from dedicated solution champions mine whether some single or a set of conditions are necessary (Keränen and Liozu 2020), who engage in market-shaping or sufficient for an outcome to occur (Kraus et al. 2018). behaviors (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen et al. 2019; Applying a set-theoretic logic, each individual observation is Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). Through market shaping, in- regarded as a whole, consisting of a specific combination of stitutional arrangements that govern the roles and behaviors of conditions that is related or unrelated to an outcome of inter- various stakeholders can be shaped intentionally by a firm that est, and is not diaggregated into separate variables (Fiss 2011). engages in activities aimed at redesigning the exchange, fsQCA originally stems from the political science and so- reconfiguring networks of actors, or reforming institutions ciology literature. In recent years, fsQCA has also gained in- (Nenonen et al. 2019). creasing popularity in marketing and service research. Studies In summary, by applying configurational theory to evi- that adopt it have provided novel insights into service innova- dence from solution selling and sales force transformation tion attributes (Ordanini et al. 2014), configurations of drivers literature, we predict that salesperson engagement in solution for successful service infusion (Forkmann et al. 2017), and the selling represents a complex phenomenon, in which combina- interplay of market orientation and marketing performance tions of conditions likely explain the outcomes better than measurement (Frösén et al. 2016), among others. While individual conditions. Thus, as in Fig. 1, we expect individual fsQCA was originally developed for analyzing qualitative da- salesperson conditions and organizational conditions to inter- ta with relatively small sample sizes, it is increasingly used to act, which determines the level of situational fit that can facil- also analyze large samples of up to 1000 cases (Schneider and itate salesperson engagement in solution selling. The resulting Eggert 2014). As a consequence, fsQCA can be considered an 145 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 alternative to conventional data analysis methods for samples causal asymmetry, in that the same condition can lead to different of any size. In choosing the appropriate methodology, re- outcomes depending on how it is combined with other condi- searchers should mainly consider the research aim and the tions. This also implies that the absence of a condition that leads assumed causal structure of a research phenomenon to an outcome does not necessarily imply the absence of the (Schneider and Eggert 2014). In the paragraph that follows, outcome (Ragin 2008). Given these characteristics, fsQCA is we contrast fsQCA with conventional data analysis methods, considered advantageous when researchers are interested in iden- i.e., regression and cluster analysis, and also delineate when tifying the central causes of a certain outcome (“causes-of-ef- each of these approaches is most appropriate. fects”) and when the links between different conditions are con- sidered to be complex, that is, when an outcome has more than Contrasting fsQCA with conventional data analysis one cause and when these causes work together to cause the methods outcome (Kraus et al. 2018), as is the case with our research. In contrast, conventional data analysis methods such as re- We argue that fsQCA is the best method to capture the causal gression or cluster analyses often fail to capture the nuances of complexity inherent to applications of configurational theory causal complexity (Frösén et al. 2016), since they address only (Böhm et al. 2017; Frösén et al. 2016). FsQCA investigates some of the assumptions of configuration theory, as shown in how several causal conditions jointly (as configurations) ex- Table 2. Regression analysis estimates the average or net effect plain an outcome of interest (Fiss 2011; Ragin 2000), thereby of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable identifying the central causes of a desired outcome (“causes- (Mahoney and Goertz 2006). This way, researchers are able to of-effects”, Mahoney and Goertz 2006). In doing so, fsQCA determine how much a particular variable influences the outcome allows to incorporate all the central assumptions of configura- (“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz 2006). Regression tion theory, namely, conjunctural causation, equifinality, analyses typically identify “the one and only model” that best causal asymmetry, and the necessity versus sufficiency of represents the empirical data (Schneider and Eggert 2014,p. causal conditions (Table 2). 314). Although interaction effects can be used to test configura- First, fsQCA reveals how several conditions combine to cre- tional arguments to some extent, they generally are limited to ate an outcome (Fiss 2011). In other words, fsQCA builds on the combinations of two or three variables, because higher-order premise that the interplay of conditions rather than single condi- interactions would be difficult to interpret and could cause tions constitute an outcome of interest, which is termed multicollinearity problems (Frösén et al. 2016). In regression conjunctural causation (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Second, it analysis, variables are also always regarded as both necessary addresses equifinality by allowing several different configura- and sufficient, so only one specific form of causality can be tions to lead to the same outcome (Fiss 2007). Third, fsQCA revealed (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Moreover, regression can distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions and thereby analysis implicitly assumes unifinality (i.e., the maximum out- provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between a come is achieved only if all positively [negatively] correlated condition and an outcome (Fiss et al. 2013). A condition is con- variables are maximized [minimized]) and causal symmetry sidered necessary when the focal outcome can only be obtained (i.e., the effect of an increase in a variable is equal to and opposite in the presence of that condition; it is sufficient when the condi- the effect of a decrease of the same magnitude in that variable) tion always leads to the focal outcome (Fiss 2007). Combining (Fiss et al. 2013). In sum, regression analyses are most appropri- these situations, fsQCA can uncover four different forms of cau- ate when researchers aim to test how much a particular variable sality (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Fourth, fsQCA accounts for influences the outcome (“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz Table 2 Suitability of different methods for testing causal complexity fsQCA Regression Cluster Analysis Research Aim Identify combinations of conditions Estimate average net effects of Identify distinct groups of that lead to an outcome; single variables; cases that are similar Causes-of-effects Effect-of-causes in several variables Assumed Causal Structure Links between conditions Links between variables are Internal causal structure is are complex linear and additive not relevant Addressed Assumptions of Configuration Theory Uncovers conjunctural causation ✓ (✓) ✓ Identifies equifinal solutions ✓✓ Distinguishes between necessity vs. sufficiency ✓ Allows for causal asymmetry ✓ 146 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 2006) and when the links between the variables are assumed to With its solution business, this firm seeks positive impacts for be additive and linear rather than complex and configurational the businesses of its key customers, such as by simplifying the (Schneider and Eggert 2014). construction process and making it easier for building owners to Cluster analysis can identify distinct groups of cases that manage the building use experience. This change in vision ac- are similar with regard to a set of variables. The resulting companied a novel offering that integrates different building sub- group memberships can be used to predict an outcome of systems into an intelligent solution. On the offering level, it entails interest, which produces results similar to fsQCA (Cooper the combination of various product and service components to and Glaesser 2011). Nevertheless, there are major conceptual constitute the smart building solution. Initially, the firm sold and differences between fsQCA and cluster analysis, including the delivered these solutions through a dedicated, global project unit. inability of cluster analysis to distinguish necessary from suf- To implement an organization-wide transformation to the solu- ficient conditions (Frösén et al. 2016) or account for asymmet- tion business, the firm later developed a modular solution offering ric relationships (Fiss 2011). Compared with fsQCA, cluster that could be sold by salespeople nested in its various subsidiaries analysis also is more inductive, because membership in a spe- around the globe. Previously, salespeople targeted by the trans- cific cluster is driven at least partly by the distribution of formation had been responsible solely for sales of the company’s variables within a particular sample (Cooper and Glaesser core product offerings. Given that situations in which companies’ 2011). Moreover, cluster analysis does not help to determine salespeople simultaneously sell existing and new offerings are those aspects of a configuration that are central to the outcome hard to implement (van der Borgh et al. 2017), the firm of interest (Fiss 2011), involving limited insights into the in- established a dedicated transformation program. We leveraged ternal causal structure of a configuration. As a result, cluster our close access to key decision-makers in the firm, combined analysis is mainly suited for research with a descriptive ap- with our understanding of prior literature, to identify pertinent proach, e.g. when researchers aim to identify distinct groups conditions for solution selling engagement in this relevant case. of cases with regard to a set of variables, without being inter- To understand the conditions that prompt salesperson solution ested in how the different variables work together (Fiss 2007). selling engagement, we collected multilevel and multisource sur- Summing it up, fsQCA allows researchers to gain a more fine- vey data from salespeople, sales managers, and solution cham- grained understanding of the causal complexity underlying a pions in the company’s various sales organizations. We specific research phenomenon. In our case, it enables us to iden- approached 34 local sales organizations that operate in different, tify combinations of individual and organizational conditions that international sales areas. They are country subsidiaries of varying together induce salespeople’s engagement in solution selling, sizes, tasked with selling the firm’sglobalofferingintheir re- rather than individual conditions that are universally relevant to spective geographical regions. The sales organizations are ex- solution selling engagement. Moreover, fsQCA allows us to un- pected to handle all types of customers and offerings except for cover several equifinal ways to engage salespeople in solution highly complex, fully tailored, large-scale solutions that exceed a selling, depending on their heterogeneous starting position. specified monetary threshold and thus get sent to the global project organization. The fsQCA methodology requires matched Empirical context and data collection triadic data with no missing values for the studied conditions; we were able to collect complete triadic data sets from 26 local sales According to Schneider and Wagemann (2010), familiarity with organizations, representing 76% coverage. The 8 excluded orga- the empirical context is advantageous when conducting fsQCA, nizations lacked management (3), champion (2), or salesperson because it facilitates the choice of relevant conditions and helps (3) responses. verify the resulting configurations. We have engaged in a long- From the sales organizations with complete data sets, we term research collaboration with a European manufacturer of collected 26 sales manager responses and 23 solution cham- intelligent building solutions that continues to undergo an pion responses (3 champions worked with two organizations organization-wide solution transformation process, so we have each). The 26 units employed a total of 624 salespersons. The notable access to relevant cases (i.e., individual salespersons solution transformation had started one year before the survey, nested in sales organizations). This research collaboration has but the units had reached different phases. In most of them, spanned more than 10 years, and the primary study context per- some salespeople still had not been tasked with selling the tains to the solution transformation process. The company em- new solutions offering. Therefore, to identify relevant infor- ploys over 50,000 employees and reports revenues of nearly 10 mants, the salesperson survey started with five qualification billion euros. It operated for more than a century as a product questions about the salesperson’s (1) attendance at the firm’s manufacturer, so its organization, processes, and technologies global solution offering launch event, (2) attendance at the strongly evolved according to this established product business. firm’s local solution offering launch event, (3) attendance at But in the past decade, it has engaged in concerted efforts to training dealing with the solution offering, (4) current involve- transform from a product manufacturer to a solution provider, ment in solution sales, and (5) the next year’s planned involve- ment in solution sales. Negative responses led to the dedicated to delivering an enhanced building use experience. 147 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 informant’s disqualification from this study. We sent the ques- responses with missing values, we ended with 184 usable tionnaire to 624 salespeople and received 290 responses, for a responses, for a total response rate of 29%. Considering that response rate of 45%. When we excluded those who did not many salespeople had not yet been involved in the solution pass the qualification questions, we retained 200 solution selling transformation though, the effective response rate is salespeople in 26 units, such that 69% of the respondents were likely higher. Table 3 summarizes the respondents’ involved in the solution selling transformation. After dropping demographics. Table 3 Respondent demographics SALESPEOPLE CHAMPIONS MANAGERS Sales Experience N Percent Sales Experience N Percent Sales Experience N Percent 5< 45 24.5 5< 8 34.8 5< 5 19.2 5-9 37 20.1 5-9 4 17.4 5-9 5 19.2 10-14 39 21.2 10-14 4 17.4 10-14 2 7.7 15-19 24 13 15-19 5 21.7 15-19 4 15.4 20-24 23 12.5 20-24 0 0 20-24 2 7.7 25> 16 8.7 25> 0 0 25> 4 15.4 Total 184 100 Missing 2 8.7 Missing 4 15.4 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Gender N Percent Gender N Percent Gender N Percent 167 90.8 21 91.3 23 88.5 Male Male Male 10 5.4 1 4.3 1 3.8 Female Female Female Missing 7 3.8 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Education level N Percent Education level N Percent Education level N Percent Master or higher 52 28.3 Master or higher 7 30.4 Master or higher 11 42.3 Bachelor 56 30.4 Bachelor 10 43.5 Bachelor 11 42.3 Vocational degree 36 19.6 Vocational degree 6 26.1 Vocational degree 3 11.5 High school 26 14.1 High school 0 0 High school 1 3.8 Other 13 7.1 Other 0 0 Other 0 0 1 .5 23 100 26 100 Missing Total Total 184 100 Total Education type N Percent Education type N Percent Education type N Percent Technical degree 85 46.2 Technical degree 13 56.5 Technical degree 12 46.2 Business degree 50 27.2 Business degree 5 21.7 Business degree 10 38.5 Other 33 17.9 Other 4 17.4 Other 2 7.7 Missing 16 8.7 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Age N Percent Age N Percent Age N Percent 25< 1 .5 25< 0 0 25< 0 0 25 – 29 10 5.4 25 - 29 0 0 25 - 29 0 0 30-34 24 13 30-34 4 17.4 30-34 0 0 35-39 37 20.1 35-39 3 13 35-39 2 7.7 40-44 36 19.6 40-44 6 26.1 40-44 2 7.7 45-49 25 13.6 45-49 3 13 45-49 8 30.8 50-54 24 13 50-54 3 13 50-54 7 26.9 55-59 16 8.7 55-59 3 13 55-59 4 15.4 60> 11 6 60> 1 4.3 60> 1 3.8 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Missing 2 7.7 Total 26 100 148 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 4 Construct items, loadings, and reliability statistics Items Loading α CR AVE Solution selling engagement (based on Fu et al. 2009) .96 .97 .92 Compared to other salespeople, how much time do you spend on selling solutions? .94 Compared to other salespeople, how intensively do you work to sell solutions? .98 Compared to other salespeople, how much overall effort do you put into selling solutions? .97 Perceived solution risk (adapted from Sarin and O’Connor 2009) .89 .95 .90 Solution sales can harm my sales performance. .95 Solution sales can harm my existing customer relationships. .95 Solution sales can harm my reputation among colleagues at my firm.* – Solution experience –– – I have sales experience with offerings that are comparable to our solutions. 1.00 Value-based selling (based on Terho et al. 2017) .86 .90 .69 I use a value-based selling approach. .89 Based on a profound knowledge of my customers’ business, I show how our products/ .88 services will improve their company’s performance. I work towards improving my customers’ bottom line. .70 I focus on identifying opportunities to improve customers’ business profits. .84 Communication of role expectations (based on Homburg et al. 2010) .94 .95 .84 I regularly instruct our salespeople to spend their time and attention to solution sales. .79 I keep telling our salespeople that they must gear up for solution sales. .94 I intensively encourage our salespeople to promote solution solutions. .93 I push our salespeople to solution sales. .93 Solution training (adapted from Homburg et al. 2009; Jelinek et al. 2006) .92 .94 .81 Our salespeople receive thorough training regarding the technologies for our solutions. .93 Our salespeople receive thorough sales process–related training for solution sales. .90 Our salespeople receive thorough customer business–related training for solution sales. .90 Our salespeople continuously receive training that enhances their ability regarding solution sales. .93 Champion market-shaping behavior (new scale) .88 .92 .74 I regularly meet key stakeholders in this industry to showcase our solution vision. .88 I systematically invest time and effort to make customers rethink their purchasing preferences. .92 I actively influence key opinion leaders in our industry to remove customer constraints for solutions. .86 I work hard to change customers’ existing purchasing practices to match with our solutions. .76 Anchors: 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Anchors: 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience). Notes: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted. * Removed indicator. Measures the degree to which salespeople think solution selling might harm their sales performance and existing customer relation- We used established scales to study the transformation condi- ships. The scale for value-based selling comes from Terho tions whenever possible (see Table 4). Unless otherwise noted, et al. (2017) and measures the extent to which salespeople have all items rely on seven-point Likert scales, with 1 indicating used value-based selling approaches in their previous sales ac- strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement. The tivities. To measure solution experience, we ask salespeople to solution selling engagement, perceived solution risk, solution rate their past sales experience with offerings that are compara- experience, and value-based selling data come from the sales- ble to the launched solutions, on a semantic differential scale person survey. To measure solution selling engagement out- from 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience). comes, we use a three-item scale from Fu et al. (2009)that On the organizational level, we consider three key condi- captures the time, energy, and overall effort salespeople invest tions. From the management data, we assess sales managers’ in selling the launched solution. Perceived solution risk relies on communication of role expectations regarding solutions, items adapted from Sarin and O’Connor (2009), encompassing reflected in the extent to which sales managers stress solutions J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 149 Table 5 Correlations, means, and Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 standard deviations 1. Solution selling engagement .96 2. Perceived solution risk −.01 .95 3. Solution experience .38** −.08 – 4. Value-based selling .08 -,18* .19* .83 5. Communication of role expectations .08 -,17* .05 ,15* .90 6. Solution training .01 −.14 .01 .07 .63** .92 7. Champion market-shaping behavior −.07 −.11 .01 .09 .20** −.02 .86 Mean 4.17 2.78 4.11 5.54 5.00 4.09 5.21 Standard deviation 1.47 1.53 1.80 0.92 1.10 1.39 1.52 N 184 184 184 184 23 26 26 * p < .05. ** p < .01. (Significance is based on two-tailed tests.) Note: The square root of the average variance extracted appears on the diagonal in bold. and encourage salespeople to sell them (Homburg et al. 2010). construct definition, five field interviews with champions and The managers also indicate the extent of solution training for managers involved with market-shaping initiatives, and rele- their sales force (Homburg et al. 2009; Jelinek et al. 2006). For vant prior literature. To ensure the clarity and relevance of the solution champions, we focus on market-shaping behavior de- scale indicators, we reviewed the questionnaire with two senior signed to modify customer-side features and influence industry executives who designed the global solution transformation norms (Nenonen et al. 2019). This market-shaping behavior is program implemented by our partner sales organization. The measured with a new scale, with items developed based on the data analysis supports the validityand reliabilityofthe scales, Step 1: Calibration and Transformation of Conditions Derive measures for theoretically relevant conditions and outcome Determine thresholds for nonmembership, full membership, and indifference Transform variables into fuzzy set scores to capture the degree of membership in each condition and outcome Step 2: Identification of Necessary Conditions Check whether any condition or its negation is necessary for the outcome Step 3: Construction of Truth Table Build Truth Table List all possible configurations of conditions Identify whether configurations lead to the outcome Identify Relevant and Consistent Configurations Determine thresholds for frequency and consistency Limit truth table to relevant and consistent configurations Step 4: Identification of Sufficient Conditions Use Boolean logic to reduce configurations to its most simple logical expression Evaluate configurations using consistency and coverage measures Distinguish “core” and “periphery” conditions Step 5: Interpretation of Results Evaluate and interpret the final set of configurations that consistently lead to the outcome Fig. 2 Analytical procedure of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis INTERPRETATION PREPARATION ANALYSIS PHASE PHASE PHASE 150 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 with Cronbach’s alphas (>.70), composite reliabilities (>70), Step 1: Calibration and transformation of conditions. average variances extracted (>.50), and factor loadings (>.70) that exceed recommended minimum thresholds (Table 5). In a first step, the different measures for the condi- Fornell and Larcker’s(1981) criterion also is met. We sum tions and the outcome are calibrated and transformed the validated scales for the fsQCA. Table 5 contains the de- into fuzzy set scores ranging from 0 to 1, indicating scriptive statistics and correlations of the measures. the degree of membership in each condition. This effort requires determining thresholds for nonmembership, full membership, and indifference for each variable. The cal- Analytical procedure and empirical results ibration should build on theoretical anchors instead of of the fsQCA empirical means to classify membership versus non- membership (Fiss 2011). In line with Frösén et al. FsQCA usually involves five steps (Fig. 2), which we specify (2016), we use theoretically meaningful thresholds to here, together with the empirical study results. We conduct calibrate our Likert scales, with 2 (disagree) indicating our analysis using the fs/QCA 3.0 software package (Ragin the threshold for non-membership (fuzzy set score of and Davey 2016). .05), 6 (agree) indicating the threshold for full member- Table 6 Calibration Construct Original Scale Thresholds Used in Calibration Solution selling engagement Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Perceived solution risk Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Solution experience Semantic differential scale (from 1 “no Threshold for full membership 7(“extensive experience”) experience” to 7 “extensive experience”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 Threshold for non-membership 1(“no experience”) (fuzzy score of .05) Value-based selling Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Communication of role Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) expectations disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Solution training Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Champion market-shaping Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) behavior disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) 151 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 7 Necessary conditions for solution selling engagement selling engagement theoretically can be achieved in the pres- ence or absence of all other conditions. Condition Consistency Coverage Salesperson conditions Step 3: Construction of truth table. Perceived solution risk .35 .77 In the third step, we construct a truth table that lists all ~ Perceived solution risk .84 .64 possible combinations of conditions, then assign empirical Solution experience cases to the different configurations and determine if they lead .71 .76 to the outcome or not (Fiss 2011). We can reduce the truth ~ Solution experience table to relevant and consistent configurations by applying .48 .57 minimum frequency and consistency thresholds. The truth Value-based selling table for our study, listing all logically possible combinations .95 .63 of the six conditions, is in Appendix Table 11.It consists of64 ~ Value-based selling configurations (2 ; k = number of conditions). However, .22 .81 when a necessary condition is identified in the second step Organizational conditions of fsQCA analysis, truth table rows that do not contain this Communication of role expectations condition should be excluded from the minimization process .86 .66 (Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Wagemann et al. 2016). ~ Communication of role expectations .36 .76 When we exclude rows without value-based selling, the truth Solution training table encompasses 32 configurations, and we observe 18 of .67 .68 them in our sample. The remainders are mainly configurations ~ Solution training that do not feature any communication of role expectations, .54 .68 which is reasonable; planned strategic transformations usually Champion market-shaping behavior attract substantial management attention. Thus, as is typical .81 .62 for fsQCA studies, the logically excluded remainders repre- ~ Champion market-shaping behavior sent unlikely empirical configurations (Ragin 2008). In .35 .73 turn, we feel confident that limited diversity is not a concern. Notes: ~ indicates the absence of a condition We reduced the truth table to the set of meaningful configu- rations by identifying those consistently associated with high ship (fuzzy set score of .95), and 4 (neither agree nor solution selling engagement. In line with prior studies, we used a consistency score of .75 and a frequency threshold of disagree) indicating the crossover point (fuzzy set score three observations per configuration (Ragin 2008). Nine con- of .50). For solution experience, measured with a se- figurations meet these thresholds and represent configurations mantic differential scale with two polarized response that consistently lead to solution selling engagement. options, we use the scale endpoints 1 (no experience) and 7 (extensive experience) as thresholds for full non- Step 4: Identification of sufficient conditions. membership and membership as well as their mid value as the crossover point (see Table 6). The fourth step continues with the identification of suffi- Step 2: Identification of necessary conditions. cient conditions or configurations of conditions. In this step, we apply Boolean algebra to reduce relevant configurations The second step checks whether any condition or its nega- linked with the outcome to their most simple, logical expres- sions (Ragin 2006). In detail, the truth table algorithm sim- tion are necessary for the outcome of interest. A single condi- plifies the logical expressions that describe the configurations tion is necessary if it is always present (absent) when the based on redundancy levels (e.g., if A*B*C→ X and A*B* ~ outcome occurs (Fiss 2007), that is, when the consistency C→ X, then A*B→ X) (Fiss 2011;Ragin 2008). The score for a specific condition exceeded a threshold of .90 resulting configurations can then be evaluated using consis- (Schneider and Wagemann 2010). The consistency scores in tency and coverage measures. Consistency indicates the suf- our study ranged between .22 and .95, and one condition (value-based selling) exceeds the .90 threshold (Table 7): ficiency of a configuration and the extent to which con- figurations uniformly lead to the outcome (Ragin 2006); Salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condition to achieve solution selling engagement. Otherwise, solution coverage captures the empirical relevance of a 152 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 configuration (Fiss 2007;Ragin 2006). Within each between .79 and .92, so each identified configuration configuration, fsQCA can distinguish core and peripher- is consistently associated with salespeople’s solution al conditions, by comparing parsimonious and interme- selling engagement. In terms of coverage, the five iden- diate solutions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions exhibit a tified configurations capture approximately 77% of strong causal relationship with the outcome, whereas membership in the outcome; the overall solution ex- peripheral conditions have a weaker relationship with plains a substantial proportion of salespeople’ssolution the outcome but reinforce the central features of the selling engagement. Because the unique coverage values core conditions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions are part also are greater than 0, all configurations are relevant of both the intermediate and parsimonious solutions; for explaining solution selling engagement. Within dif- peripheral conditions only appear in the intermediate ferent configurations, we distinguish core from periph- solution. eral conditions by comparing the intermediate and par- In our case, we reduced the set of nine meaningful simonious solutions. configurations to five configurations, using the fuzzy truth table algorithm implemented in fsQCA software Step 5: Interpretation of results. (Ragin 2008). Table 8 reports the results obtained with the intermediate solution; Appendix 3 presents the over- Finally, we must interpret the fsQCA solution. The all solution using formal Boolean notation. We evaluate identified solution contains five configurations that con- solution quality with consistency and coverage criteria. sistently result in solution selling engagement among Consistency should not fall below .75 (Fiss 2011), as is salespeople (see Table 8). As seen from the results, the case for the overall solution and each individual salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condi- configuration. That is, the consistency scores range tion, such that they engage in solution selling only if Table 8 Sufficient conditions for solution selling engagement J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 153 they have practiced a value-based selling approach in with heterogeneous starting positions. Organizational their prior selling tasks. Otherwise, solution selling en- support turns out to be vital for most salespeople, but gagement theoretically can be achieved in the presence not every form of organizational support is equally es- or absence of the remaining conditions, depending on sential for every type of salesperson. In particular, the the situational fit. results suggest that salespeople who regard solution sell- Configuration C1 features exceptional salespeople ing as risky require exhaustive support, by both man- with prior solution selling experience, a value-based agers and solution champions. If, instead, salespeople selling capability, and no solution selling risk percep- do not perceive the transition as risky, management tions. In this optimal but rare situation, salespeople and champion support can act as substitutes. Some ex- can transition into solution selling without any organi- ceptional salespeople (who know how to practice value- zational support; their solution selling engagement is based selling, have prior experience with solution sell- high even if they never receive communications about ing, and do not perceive risk) can engage without any role expectations, training, or solution champion sup- organizational support. port. Configurations C2a and C2b characterize salespersons with no perceived solution selling risk who practice value-based selling. Experience with solu- Discussion and conclusions tions is not of concern for these salespeople. They suc- cessfully engage in solution selling when sales manage- Theoretical implications ment encourages the sales force by communicating role expectations and when they either receive training or This research contributes to both sales force transforma- champion support. Configuration C3 indicates that prior tion and solution selling literature. First, we take the solution experience and value-based selling can result in notion of salesperson heterogeneity as a starting point engagement, irrespective of perceived risk, as long as and apply configurational thinking to demonstrate that a there is a simultaneous presence of management-level large-scale sales force transformation features equifinal support in terms of communication of role expectations paths to the intended outcome among a heterogeneous and champion-level support. In this configuration, prior sales force. Prior studies have, with a few exceptions, solution selling experience represents the core condition, sought to identify universal antecedents that will gener- and the other conditions reinforce it. Finally, salespeo- ally result in intended outcomes when applied across the ple in Configuration C4 confront high perceived solu- entire sales force (e.g., Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg tion selling risk, a core condition that is causally more et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson important than the other conditions. In this situation, and Sohi 2017). However, as suggested by Ahearne salespeople only engage in solution selling if they re- et al. (2010) and shown in this study, salespeople differ ceive exhaustive support from both managers and cham- in their ability to change whereby a universal applica- pions, such that management communicates expectations tion of transformation conditions across the salesforce and offers training, and solution champions create op- may not be the best approach to achieve complex portunities through their market-shaping efforts. As transformations. such, Configuration 4 seems to reflect the most chal- Second, our findings extend solution selling research lenging starting position for a sales force transformation with novel insights about the individual and organiza- to solution selling. In contrast, Configurations 2a, 2b, tional conditions of engaging product-centric salespeople and 3 demand sales managers to invest in some but in solution selling. Beyond the recognition that solution not all forms of organizational support. selling is important and challenging to implement, prior In sum, our results reveal that it is not a single condition literature provides relatively little insights on how to alone that explains salespeople’s engagement in solution sell- foster the shift from product selling to solution selling ing, but rather combinations of conditions, thereby illustrating (Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Ulaga and Loveland 2014). the causal complexity inherent in solution transformations. On a more general level, our results challenge and ex- The results support the notion that solution selling en- tend established thinking about the possibility of engag- gagement is contingent on the fit between individual ing product-oriented salespeople in solution selling. On salesperson-level conditions and organizational support the one hand, we confirm that not all salespeople are conditions. Specifically, the five identified configura- willingorabletomove intosolutionselling(Ulagaand tions represent equifinal paths to engaging salespeople Loveland 2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). On the other 154 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 hand, our results contest the prevailing notion that a market does not fit customers’ established resource in- transformation to solution selling requires large-scale re- tegration practices, it requires the negotiation of institu- cruitments of new salespeople (Ulaga and Loveland tional resistance (Hartmann et al. 2018), which often is 2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). As long as they have beyond the capacity of any individual salesperson. value-based selling capabilities, heterogeneous salespeo- Solution champions act on behalf of the organization ple can be engaged in solution selling through appropri- to help the salesperson redesign the exchange, reconfig- ate organizational support tailored to the salesperson’s ure networks of actors, or reform institutions (Baker individual needs. et al. 2019;Nenonenetal. 2019;Storbacka and With regard to the specific conditions of solution Nenonen 2011). selling engagement, two findings are particularly impor- tant, given that they have not been addressed in prior Managerial implications solution selling research. First, risk perceptions emerged as a critical condition of salespeople’s engagement in Our research provides several suggestions for how manufac- solution selling. While prior literature has mainly turers should manage a sales force–wide transformation from stressed the ability-related aspects of salesforce transfor- product selling to solution selling (see Table 9). mation, such as individual skills and capabilities (e.g., First, with regard to the general management of sales Bonney and Williams 2009; Ulaga and Loveland 2014), force transformations, our results stress the fit between our findings indicate that there is a need to consider individual salesperson characteristics and different forms salespersons’ risk perceptions and ways to mitigate of organizational support. Building on this, we suggest these perceptions through the provision of tailored orga- a systematic planning of large-scale transformations that nizational support for the transformation. Second, our includes two major steps. Transformation management results highlight the vital role of solution champions, should begin by creating salesperson profiles, based on which resonates with recent calls to adopt an institution- key conditions central to the transformation in question. al perspective in marketing and sales research (e.g., Then, management can proceed by developing a tailored Baker et al. 2019; Hartmann et al. 2018; Vargo and organizational support program. Such an approach pro- Lusch 2016). When a new solution introduced to the vides salespeople with individualized support while also Table 9 Managerial implications Instrumental Area Key Findings Suggestions General Management of � Solution selling engagement is contingent � Systematic planning of transformation management Sales Force Transformation on the fit between individual should include (1) the creation of salesperson characteristics and organizational support profiles and (2) the development of tailored organizational support programs that fit those profiles Sales Force Selection � Few exceptional salespeople engage in � Identify most appeling candidates to form a and Targeting solution selling virtually without any smaller-scale solution sales force that kicks off the organizational support solution transformation (salespeople with high value-based selling abilities, solution selling experience, and low risk perceptions) � Value-based selling is a threshold competency � Screen salespeople for their ability to practice for solution selling engagement value-based selling � Introduce tools and trainings to enhance value-based selling capabilities if necessary � Salespeople with high risk perceptions � Reduce risk perceptions such as by offering solution have the highest need for organizational incentives, setting realistic objectives, and support communicating the benefits of solutions Forms of Organizational � Role expectations are an important � Convince sales managers of the relevance of the Support facilitator of solution selling engagement solution business and the importance of communicating clear role expectations � Champion support can act as substitute � Introduce dedicated solution champions for management support � Solution champions might be chosen from the smaller-scale solution sales team that initially kicked off the solution transformation 155 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 helping the organization to target its scarce organiza- related performance. Whereas our study offers valuable in- tional resources most efficiently. sights into the critical conditions that drive salespersons’ so- Second, our results offer actionable guidelines to the selec- lution selling engagement, further research is needed to detail tion and targeting of salespeople to participate in solution its performance links and contingencies. selling. We show that some exceptional salespeople can en- Second, to study the complex interplay of individual gage in solution selling without requiring virtually any and organizational conditions, we collaborated with one organizational support; those salespeople exhibit value- firm, which granted us vast access to its salespeople, based selling abilities, have solution selling experience, sales managers, and solution champions. Yet the data and express low risk perceptions. These rare salespeople refer exclusively to one solution provider, working in are likely critical to initiating the first steps of a firm- a specific industrial setting, so the results cannot be wide solution transformation and might be part of a automatically generalized to a broader population. smaller-scale sales team to kick off the solution trans- Nevertheless, we posit that the particular transformation formation. By sharing internal success stories, this initial conditions identified in this study are likely to apply to sales team can create positive pressure that encourages the selling of most standardized, modularized solutions. other salespeople to also engage in solution selling. Still, we encourage future research to confirm these For broader transformation roll-outs, our results provide findings in different empirical contexts. important recommendations for identifying salespeople pro- Third, the results point to a crucial role of solution files and targeting them with appropriate support. All sales- champions, as facilitators of solution selling engagement people should be able to practice value-based selling, so man- in an industrial sales force. Noting their importance, it agers should screen existing sales forces for the presence of would be worthwhile to determine further how solution this threshold competency. Beyond that, salespeople with dif- champions’ market-shaping activities shape salespeoples’ ferent profiles can be engaged, through appropriate forms of risk perceptions and help overcome customers’ institu- organizational support, mainly determined by their risk per- tional resistance in a solution transformation context. ceptions. Because the need for support diminishes among Fourth, given that fsQCA places a practical limit on salespeople with low risk perceptions, management could at- the number of conditions feasible to include in the anal- tempt to reduce risk perceptions by offering solution incen- ysis (Wagemann et al. 2016), we chose to focus on tives, setting realistic objectives, and persuasively communi- salesperson and organizational conditions. In doing so, cating the benefits of solution selling for customers, the com- we indirectly address the customer perspective, for in- pany, and individual salespeople. stance, by incorporating salespeople’s risk perception Third, managers can build on our research to select effec- that solution selling might harm their existing customer tive forms of organizational support for sales force transfor- relationships. The need for solution champions’ market mations. Communicating role expectations emerges as an es- shaping efforts reflects the readiness of customers to sential facilitator of solution selling engagement among sales- buy solutions. Nevertheless, we note that the customer people; only a few exceptional salespersons shift into solution perspective is still remarkably absent in solution selling selling without it. Top-level management should therefore research and therefore encourage future research to ex- convince sales managers of the relevance of the solution busi- plicitly incorporate customer conditions as an additional ness and stress the importance of communicating clear expec- level of analysis. tations to the sales force. Moreover, we identified solution Finally, by focusing on selected conditions in the champions as a potential substitute for management support. context of a solution transformation spanning both indi- Manufacturers should therefore consider introducing dedicat- vidual and organizational levels, we established novel ed solution champions within specific business units to facil- insights about the nature of complex salesforce transfor- itate solution transformations. These could be exceptional mations. These exploratory insights pave the way for salespersons who have been part of a solution-specific sales future research to develop and test a new theory of team during the initial phases of the solution transformation. salesforce transformation that builds on the assumption that salesforce-wide transformations are contingent on Limitations and further research the fit between individual and organizational conditions that interact to facilitate engagement of a heterogenous The limitations of this study offer promising avenues for fur- salesforce in planned organization change. We encour- ther research. First, we focus on salesperson solution selling age such theorizing efforts, incorporating multiple orga- engagement, a critical first step toward realizing a sales force– nizations across various transformation contexts. wide solution transformation. It logically is needed for subse- Funding Information Open access funding provided by University of quent solution selling performance, yet engagement does not Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital. automatically translate into solution selling or customer- 156 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Appendix 1 Table 10 Sales Force Transformation Research (full references available on request) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Mullins et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Salesperson, leader, customer, and sales team factors explain salesperson motivation to X X X Not uniform N = 433 Salespersons; (2019)JAMS culture and strategy: customer value conduct value-based selling. Prevention-focused salespersons move to value-based N = 70 Managers orientation selling only when the sales team monitoring climate is lower. Keränen and Sales force–wide implementation of firm Organizational value champions can facilitate customer value management through four X Uniform Qualitative, interviews Liozu (2020) culture and strategy: customer value role configurations related to the level (individual; organizational) and continuance with 59 managers IMM management (temporary; permanent). Various championing roles drive change among internal and external stakeholders. Hayati et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Sales managers’ transactional and transformational leadership and central peers’ strategy XX Uniform N = 398 salespersons; (2018)JAMS culture and strategy: new strategy role commitment drive salesperson strategy role commitment. Non-committed peers N = 60 Managers with high network centrality can hinder these effects. Terho et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Salesperson adoption of value-based selling requires specific motivations and abilities, X X Not uniform N = 944 Salespersons; (2017)IMM culture and strategy: customer value such as learning orientation and networking skills. Organizational opportunities, in the N = 43 sales directors orientation form of value assessment tools, can help less apt salespersons adopt value-based selling behaviors and boost the performance effects of value-based selling. Johnson and Sohi Sales force–wide implementation of firm Implementation motivation, opportunity, and ability drive salesperson strategy X X Not uniform N = 277 Salespersons (2017)IMM culture and strategy: New offering implementation behaviors. These variables are in turn driven by involvement in strategy strategy development, role autonomy, and training. The effects of motivation and ability on strategy implementation behaviors are contingent on perceived opportunities, which both boost and weaken these effects. Boichuck et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Transformational leadership and supportive error management policy prevent X Uniform Longitudinal, N =221 / (2014)JM culture and strategy: preventing sales salespersons from being selling oriented when facing sales failures. N = 635 Salespersons; oriented behaviors Sarin et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Successful implementation of strategic change depends on management’s ability to affectXX Uniform N = 828 salespersons in (2012)JMR culture and strategy:new strategy salesperson reward and risk perceptions for implementing the change. 204 branches Chakrabarty Sales force–wide implementation of firm Top management long-term orientation and top management emphasis drive customer X Uniform N = 241 salespersons et al. (2012) culture and strategy: customer orientation among salespeople through social learning. JPSSM orientation Ahearne et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Some salespeople are better at adapting to change than others. Learning-oriented X Not uniform Longitudinal, N =400 (2010)JM culture and strategy: sales force wide salespersons have suboptimal performance at the beginning of change but ultimately Salespersons planned change have steeper performance recovery curves and higher re-stabilization levels. Performance orientation has the opposite effect. Lam et al. (2010) Sales force–wide implementation of firm Market orientation diffuses to sales representatives as a social learning process from “Top X Uniform N = 1528 Salespersons; JM culture and strategy: Market management to Middle managers and Expert peers” who act as role models. Actors’ N = 285 managers; Orientation network size hinders the informal route of learning through expert peers but not the N = 43 directors formal route through middle managers. Wieseke et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Organizational identification transfers top-down from business unit managers to middle XX Uniform N = 1005 Salespersons; (2009)JM culture and strategy: Organizational management to salespersons. Leader-follower dyadic tenure and charismatic leader- N =394 Sales identification ship moderate the social identification effects. managers; N = 22 BU managers XX Uniform N = 85 salespersons 157 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 10 (continued) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Grant & Bush Sales force–wide implementation of firm Sequential and serial socialization tactics, highlighting role of providing information to (1996) JPSSM culture and strategy: Organizational salesperson and socialization by peers, are positively connected to organizational value congruence value congruence among the sales force. van der Borgh New product selling Salesperson conservatism toward new products hinders engagement in efforts to sell newXX Uniform N = 172 salespersons and Schepers products but makes their efforts to sell new products more effective. Conservative N = 31 Managers (2018)JAMS selling behaviors and new product sales are driven by salespeople’s risk assessments, moderated by new product information–guided risk framing, which determines the weight of the performance risk. Chen et al. New product selling Output-, behavior-, and knowledge-based sales management controls drive salespeople’s X Uniform N = 315 Salespersons (2015)IMM perceptions of organizational support for being innovative in new product selling and thereby affect new product sales performance Zablah et al. New product selling A job demands-resources model identifies determinants of salesperson new product X X Not uniform Conceptual (2012) JPSSM selling outcomes. The model is a dual-process theory whereby salesperson selling demands and selling resources affect new product selling engagement and burnout. Resources and demands interact to create these outcomes, calling for a balance be- tween drivers. Kauppila et al. New product selling Organizational support and control systems affect salespersons’ reluctance to sell X X Uniform Conceptual (2010)IMM radically new products, both directly and indirectly through individual salesperson factors. Fu et al. (2010) New product selling Salesperson attitude and self-efficacy toward new products drive selling intentions; X Uniform Longitudinal, N =226 JM subjective norms are less effective drivers and also weaken other positive effects. Salespersons Fu et al. (2009) New product selling Assigned goals drive new product sales effort and sales with an inverted U-shaped effect. X X Uniform Longitudinal N =143 JPSSM Self-set goals fully mediate the link between assigned goals and selling effort. salespersons Fu et al. (2008) New product selling Product innovativeness has a positive and customer newness has a negative impact on X Uniform N =493 / N =362 JPSSM salespeople’s intention to sell new products, affecting new product performance salespersons indirectly. Wieseke et al. New product selling Expected customer demand and sales managers’ new brand adoption drives salesperson X X Not uniform N = 310 salespersons (2008)JAMS new brand adoption. For salespeople who perceive lower expected customer demand, N = 112 Managers the management adoption effect on their adoption is stronger. Rochford and New product selling Adjustment of sales quotas is positively connected to new products’ launch success X Uniform N = 112 sales managers Wortruba (1996)JAMS Hunter and Adoption of sales technology Salesperson’s normative and continuance commitment to technological change drive X Uniform N = 303 Salespersons Panagopoulos sales technology infusion and thereby customer orientation and sales performance. (2015)IMM Casio et al. Adoption of sales technology Salesperson perceived alignment of top management and immediate supervisors’ XX Uniform N = 292 salespersons (2010)IMM commitment to SFA is an important influence on salespeople’s adoption. Homburg et al. Adoption of sales technology Regional and sales managers’ SFA adoption has positive effects on subordinates’ SFA XX Uniform N = 1040 sales-persons; (2010)JAMS adoption. These social effects explain SFA adoption beyond the effects of traditional N = 416 Managers TAM variables. N = 22 directors Avlonitis and Adoption of CRM technology Perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness drive CRM acceptance. Social XX Uniform N = 240 salespersons Panagopoulos influences, such as supervisor and competitive influences, drive CRM acceptance (2005)IMM beyond the TAM variables. 158 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 10 (continued) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Jones et al. Adoption of sales technology Personal innovativeness, attitude toward the system, and organizational facilitating X X Uniform N = 85 salespersons (2002) JPSSM conditions drive SFA system utilization. Morgan and Inks Adoption of sales technology Accurate user expectations, user influence, and training are positively related to XX Uniform N = 131 salespersons (2001) acceptance of SFA technology. Hartmann et al. General change of selling thought: A systemic and institutional perspective recognizes that selling unfolds over time and is – Conceptual (2018)JM Service dominant logic / institutional embedded in broader social systems. A service ecosystems perspective on selling view to selling highlights the interaction between actors aimed at creating and maintaining “thin crossing points” through the ongoing alignment of institutional arrangements and the optimization of relationships. This view calls for attention to broader sets of actors who participate in selling processes. Cuevas (2018) General change of selling thought: Contemporary professional selling is transforming by: (1) increasing emphasis of hybrid – Qualitative, interviews IMM Transformation of professional offerings, requiring deep customer business understanding; (2) more with 37 managers selling in B2B markets boundary-spanning and formalized sales relationships; and (3) sales roles that move away from isolated functions toward broader integration of end-to-end business pro- cesses. Transformation is driven by new types of buyer behavior and customer requirements, new information and communication technologies, and increasing globalization, concentration and competition. Sheth and General change of selling thought: Role Traditional product-focused sales organizations will evolve in two directions. First, – Conceptual Sharma (2008) of product to service shift for selling technologies will reduce some traditional sales functions and face-to-face contact. IMM organizations Second, important customers are likely to be treated through customer-focused sales organizations and global account management teams. The shifts affect the section, training, and recruitment of salespeople, as well as their roles. Wotruba (1996) General change of selling thought: Industrial selling is driven by new trends involving customers, competitors, and – Conceptual IMM Transformation of Industrial selling companies. The changes in markets drive changes related to position (towards managing customer value, customer need advocacy, acting as internal resource for policy making), process (establishing trust and obtaining information for offering development), and people (customer need diagnosing skills, team skills, creating an empowering atmosphere). This study Sales force solution selling Salesperson solution selling engagement depends on the fit between salesperson and X X X Not uniform N = 184 salespeople, transformation organizational conditions, which vary across the heterogeneous sales force. N = 23 champions, N= 26 sales managers Notes: SFA = sales force automation, TAM = technology acceptance model, CRM = customer relationship management J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 159 Ap Appe pen ndi dixx 1 2 Table 11 Truth Table Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping Number Behavior 01 1 1 1 1 36 00 1 1 1 1 16 00 1 1 0 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 8 00 1 1 1 0 6 01 1 1 0 1 5 01 1 0 0 0 5 11 1 1 0 1 4 10 1 1 1 1 4 01 1 1 1 0 3 01 1 1 0 0 2 01 0 1 1 1 2 10 0 1 1 1 2 11 1 1 1 0 1 11 1 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 1 1 0 1 10 1 1 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 0 1 1 00 1 1 0 0 1 00 1 0 0 0 1 00 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 1 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 01 1 0 1 1 0 01 1 0 0 1 0 01 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 1 0 01 0 0 1 1 0 01 0 0 0 1 0 01 0 1 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 0 1 0 160 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 11 (continued) Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping Number Behavior 10 1 0 1 1 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 1 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 1 1 0 00 1 0 0 1 0 00 1 0 1 0 0 00 0 1 0 1 0 00 0 0 1 1 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 1 1 0 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix 3. Boolean Algebra Representation of the Overall Solution We can represent the overall solution using formal Boolean notation, which leads to the following solution formula: ∼Risk Perceptions*Experience*Value−based Selling*∼Role Expectations*∼Training*∼Market Shaping þ ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*∼Training*Market Shaping þ ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*∼Market Shaping þ Experience*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Market Shaping þ Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*Market Shaping→Solution Selling Engagement: Note: * indicates the logical ‘and’; + represents the logical ‘or’; ~ indicates the absence of a condition. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 161 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Journal, 54(2), 393–420. you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- Fiss, P. C., Sharapov, D., & Cronqvist, L. (2013). Opposites attract? vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and made. The images or other third party material in this article are included econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 191– in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Forkmann, S., Henneberg, S. C., Witell, L., & Kindström, D. (2017). Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by Driver configurations for successful service infusion. Journal of statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Service Research, 20(3), 275–291. permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statis- tics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,382–388. Franke, G. R., & Park, J. E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702. References Friend, S., & Malshe, A. (2016). Key skills for crafting customer solu- tions within an ecosystem: A theories-in-use perspective. Journal of Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Mathieu, J. E., & Bolander, W. (2010). Why are Service Research, 19(2), 174–191. some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change? Frösén, J., Luoma, J., Jaakkola, M., Tikkanen, H., & Aspara, J. (2016). JournalofMarketing,74(3), 65–79. What counts versus what can be counted: The complex interplay of Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2005). Antecedents and conse- market orientation and marketing performance measurement. quences of CRM technology acceptance in the sales force. Industrial JournalofMarketing,80(3), 60–78. Marketing Management, 34(4), 355–368. Fu, F. Q., Jones, E., & Bolander, W. (2008). Product innovativeness, Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing, customer newness, and new product performance: a time-lagged changing markets: Institutional work as market shaping. Marketing examination of the impact of salesperson selling intentions on new Theory, 19(3), 301–328. product performance. JournalofPersonalSelling&Sales Böhm, E., Eggert, A., & Thiesbrummel, C. (2017). Service transition: A Management, 28(4), 351–364. viable option for manufacturing companies with deteriorating finan- Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2009). The motivation hub: Effects of cial performance? Industrial Marketing Management, 60(1), 101– goal setting and self-efficacy on effort and new product sales. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 277–292. Boichuk, J. P., Bolander, W., Hall, Z. R., Ahearne, M., Zahn, W. J., & Fu,F.Q., Richards,K.A., Hughes,D. E., &Jones,E.(2010).Motivating Nieves, M. (2014). Learned helplessness among newly hired sales- salespeople to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes, people and the influence of leadership. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 61–76. 95–111. Grant, E. S., & Bush, A. J. (1996). Salesforce socialization tactics: Bonney, L. F., & Williams, B. C. (2009). From products to solutions: The Building organizational value congruence. Journal of Personal role of salesperson opportunity recognition. European Journal of Selling & Sales Management, 16(3), 17–32. Marketing, 43(7/8), 1032–1052. Guido, P. (2012). How we got beyond selling products. Harvard Cascio, R., Mariadoss, B. J., & Mouri, N. (2010). The impact of manage- Business Review, 90(7/8), 107–108. ment commitment alignment on salespersons' adoption of sales Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new force automation technologies: An empirical investigation. theoretical Foundation for Selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1–18. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1088–1096. Hayati, B., Atefi, Y., & Ahearne, M. (2018). Sales force leadership during Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (2012). The role of top strategy implementation: A social network perspective. Journal of management in developing a customer-oriented sales force. the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 612–631. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(4), 437–449. Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the Chen, A., Peng, N., & Hung, K. P. (2015). Managing salespeople strate- marketing concept at the employee–customer interface: The role of gically when promoting new products–incorporating market orien- customer need knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 64–81. tation into a sales management control framework. Industrial Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Kühnl, C. (2010). Social influence on sales- Marketing Management, 51,141–149. people’s adoption of sales technology: A multilevel analysis. Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2011). Using case-based approaches to ana- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168. lyse large datasets: A comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy clus- Hunter, G. K., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2015). Commitment to techno- ter analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, logical change, sales force intelligence norms, and salesperson key 14(1), 31–48. outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 50,162–179. Cuevas, J. M. (2018). The transformation of professional selling: Jelinek, R., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). A lon- Implications for leading the modern sales organization. Industrial gitudinal examination of individual, organizational, and contextual Marketing Management, 69,198–208. factors on sales technology adoption and job performance. Journal Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–23. organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Johnson, J. S., & Sohi, R. S. (2017). Getting business-to-business sales- Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250. people to implement strategies associated with introducing new Eggert, A., Hogreve, J., Ulaga, W., & Münkhoff, E. (2014). Revenue and products and services. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, profit implications of industrial service strategies. Journal of Service 137–149. Research, 17(1), 23–39. Jones, E., Sundaram, S., & Chin, W. (2002). Factors leading to sales force Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configura- automation use: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personal selling tions. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198. & sales management, 22(3), 145–156. 162 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Kauppila, O. P., Rajala, R., & Jyrämä, A. (2010). Antecedents of sales- Sarin, S., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). First among equals: The effect of people's reluctance to sell radically new products. Industrial team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross- Marketing Management, 39(2), 308-316. functional product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 188–205. Keränen, J., & Liozu, S. (2020). Value champions in business markets: Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in Four role configurations. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. 84–96. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. Koponen, J., Julkunen, S., & Asai, A. (2019). Sales communication com- Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the petence in international B2B solution selling. Industrial Marketing social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Management, 82,238–252. Cambridge University Press. Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set qual- Schneider, M. R., & Eggert, A. (2014). Embracing complex causality itative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and inno- with the QCA method: An invitation. Journal of Business Market vation research – Theriseofamethod. International Management, 7(1), 312–328. Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14,15–33. Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (2008). The impact of the product to service Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market shift in industrial markets and the evolution of the sales organization. orientation throughout the organization: A social learning theory Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 260–269. perspective. JournalofMarketing, 74(5), 61–79. Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, Macdonald, E., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Wilson, H. N. (2016). How busi- measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing ness customers judge solutions: Solution quality and value in use. Research, 27(1), 61–69. JournalofMarketing,80(3), 96–120. Storbacka, K. (2011). A solution business model: Capabilities and man- Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quan- agement practices for integrated solutions. Industrial Marketing titative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14,227–249. Management, 40(5), 699–711. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011). Scripting markets: From value approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management propositions to market propositions. Industrial Marketing Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195. Management, 40(2), 255–266. Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2013). The interactive effects of sales control Storbacka, K., Polsa, P., & Sääksjärvi, M. (2011). Management practices systems on salesperson performance: A job demands–resources per- in solution sales – A multilevel and cross-functional framework. spective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 73–90. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(1), 35–54. Morgan, A. J., & Inks, S. A. (2001). Technology and the sales force: Terho, H., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., Haas, A., & Böhm, E. (2017). Selling Increasing acceptance of sales force automation. Industrial value in business markets: Individual and organizational factors for Marketing Management, 30(5), 463–472. turning the idea into action. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, Mullins, R., Menguc, B., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2019). Antecedents 42–55. and performance outcomes of value-based selling in sales teams: A Terho, H., Haas, A., Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2012). ‘It's almost like multilevel, systems theory of motivation perspective. Journalofthe taking the sales out of selling’—Towards a conceptualization of Academy of Marketing Science,1-22. value-based selling in business markets. Industrial Marketing Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., & Windahl, C. (2019). Capabilities for mar- Management, 41(1), 174–185. ket-shaping: Triggering and facilitating increased value creation. Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking cus- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 617–639. tomer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2014). When the recipe is JournalofMarketing,71(3), 1–17. more important than the ingredients: A qualitative comparative anal- Ulaga, W., & Kohli, A. (2018). The role of a solutions salesperson: ysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. JournalofService Reducing uncertainty and fostering adaptiveness. Industrial Research, 17(2), 134–149. Marketing Management, 69,161–168. Panagopoulos, N. G., Rapp, A. A., & Ogilvie, J. L. (2017). Salesperson Ulaga, W.,& Kowalkowski, C. (2017). Service strategy in action: A solution involvement and sales performance: The contingent role of practical guide for growing your B2B service and solution business. supplier firm and customer-supplier relationship characteristics. Service Strategy Press. JournalofMarketing,81(4), 144–164. Ulaga, W., & Loveland, J. M. (2014). Transitioning from product to Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of service-led growth in manufacturing firms: Emergent challenges in Chicago Press. selecting and managing the industrial sales force. Industrial Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their Marketing Management, 43(1), 113–125. consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufactur- Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. ing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2016). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative van der Borgh, M., & Schepers, J. (2018). Are conservative approaches to analysis 3.0. California: University of California Press. new product selling a blessing in disguise? Journal of the Academy Reinartz, W., & Ulaga, W. (2008). How to sell services more profitably. of Marketing Science, 46(5), 857–878. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 90–96. van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. (2017). Alternative mech- Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: anisms guiding salespersons’ ambidexterous product selling. British Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of JournalofManagement, 28,331–353. Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An exten- Rochford, L., & Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The impact of sales management sion and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy changes on new product success. Journalofthe Academyof of marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. Marketing Science, 24(3), 263–270. Venkatraman, N. (1989a). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A. K. (2012). Implementing changes verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management in marketing strategy: The role of perceived outcome-and process- Review, 14(3), 423–444. oriented supervisory actions. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales perfor- 564–580. mance: A contemporary meta-analysis. Have salespeople become J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 163 knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Worm, S., Bharadwaj, S. G., Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2017). When 39(3), 407–428. and why do customer solutions pay off in business markets? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 490–512. Wagemann, C., Buche, J., & Siewert, M. B. (2016). QCA and business Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The transformation of industrial selling: Causes research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda? Journal of and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(5), 327– Business Research, 69,2531–2540. Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and Zablah, A. R., Chonko, L. B., Bettencourt, L. A., Allen, G., & Haas, A. adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. (2012). A job demands-resources (JD-R) perspective on new prod- JournalofMarketing,50(4), 174–191. uct selling: A framework for future research. Journal of Personal Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of Selling & Sales Management, 32(1), 73–87. leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123–145. Zoltners, A. A., Sinha, P., & Zoltners, G. A. (2001). The complete guide Wieseke, J., Homburg, C., & Lee, N. (2008). Understanding the adoption to accelerating sales force performance. New York: American of new brands through salespeople: A multilevel framework. Management Association. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 278–291. Wise, R., & Baumgartner, P. (1999). Go downstream. Harvard Business Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- Review, 77(5), 133–133. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Springer Journals

Engaging a product-focused sales force in solution selling: interplay of individual- and organizational-level conditions

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/engaging-a-product-focused-sales-force-in-solution-selling-interplay-v4lFi7NHTL

References (90)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2020. corrected publication 2020
ISSN
0092-0703
eISSN
1552-7824
DOI
10.1007/s11747-020-00729-z
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study explains how manufacturers tackle the critical managerial challenge of transforming a product-focused sales force to undertake solution selling. Through an application of configurational theory, the authors explain how individual and organiza- tional conditions combine to determine salespeople’s engagement in solution selling. Multilevel, multisource data from the sales organization of a global supplier of building solutions represent input from salespeople (N = 184), solution champions (N =23), and sales managers (N = 26). A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis reveals no single, optimal way to overcome transfor- mation challenges. Rather, consistent with prior research, solution selling requires certain types of salespeople, because value- based selling is a necessary condition for successful engagement. Beyond this foundational condition, a heterogeneous sales force can be engaged, as long as the organization provides appropriate support that is tailored to individual salespersons’ needs. The findings affirm that this viable support can come from either sales managers or solution champions. . . . . Keywords Business-to-business marketing Customer solutions Sales force transformation Sales management fsQCA Introduction selling (Ulaga and Reinartz 2011), leading some authors to speculate that companies might need to replace large portions The imperative to go “downstream” in the value chain is ob- of their sales forces to achieve their transformation, even vious for business-to-business (B2B) companies (Wise and though doing so is costly and would disrupt existing business Baumgartner 1999), which widely and frequently adopt a and sales routines (Reinartz and Ulaga 2008;Ulaga and solution-based business approach to do so (Panagopoulos Loveland 2014). In many cases, it is not even viable, such as et al. 2017). A majority of Fortune 100 firms have pursued when solution sales complement rather than replace product some kind of solution business strategy by increasing their sales (Storbacka 2011). However, prior academic literature service and solution offerings (Guido 2012;Ulaga and offers limited guidance for how to encourage product- Kowalkowski 2017)—initiatives that demand active partici- oriented salespeople to engage with solution selling. pation from sales forces (Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Reinartz Against this background, a key managerial consideration is and Ulaga 2008; Ulaga and Loveland 2014;Wormetal. finding ways to engage sales forces in the transformation from 2017). Boundary-spanning salespeople are pivotal for crafting product selling to solution selling. This complex transforma- the solution offering and communicating its value-in-use to tional context might encompass multiple routes to success customers (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuliet al. 2007). Yet (Ahearne et al. 2010), so we adopt configuration theory to most salespeople seemingly are reluctant to engage in solution develop a conceptual framework that explains how a situa- tional fit between transformation specific factors can encour- Vikas Mittal served as Area Editor for this article. age salesperson engagement in solution selling (Venkatraman 1989). We thus integrate configuration theory with prior find- * Anna Salonen ings pertaining to sales force transformations and solution anna.k.salonen@utu.fi selling to explain how various configurations of individual salesperson and organizational conditions might lead to great- University of Turku, Turku, Finland er salesperson engagement. For the empirical study, we rely on a long-term research collaboration with a European manu- TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany 3 facturer of intelligent building solutions that, during our Aalto University, Espoo, Finland 140 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 research period, was undergoing an organization-wide solu- support options that fit each salesperson’s situational needs. tion transformation process. We use multilevel, multisource Support might involve formal, management-led initiatives or empirical data to reflect and address both individual salesper- take the form of support provided by so-called solution son and organizational conditions, nested at three levels of the champions who engage in market-shaping activities on sales organization: salespersons, solution champions, and behalf of the selling firm (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen sales managers. Furthermore, we analyze these matched, et al. 2019; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). These solu- triadic data using fuzzy set qualitative comparative anal- tion champions influence established ways of thinking ysis (fsQCA), a highly relevant method that can reveal and doing among actors in the institutional environment explanatory combinations of conditions, such as those that surrounds the transformation to solution selling that explain salesperson engagement in solution selling (Hartmann et al. 2018). Salespeople’s risk perceptions (Fiss 2007;Ragin 2006). To frame the resulting in- also emerge as a core condition of solution selling en- sights, we establish two main research questions: (1) gagement, with considerable impacts on an individual Which conditions effectively encourage an industrial salesperson’s need for comprehensive organizational sales force to engage in solution selling? (2) How do support. individual and organizational conditions combine to fa- In the next section, we outline how we build on extant sales cilitate salespersons’ engagement in solution selling? force transformation and solution selling literature to derive a set In answering these questions, this study contributes to both of conditions that might explain when and why salespeople en- personal selling and solution selling literature. First, the results gage with solution selling. Then we introduce and apply config- advance understanding of effective implementations of sales uration theory to develop our conceptual framework, which re- force–wide planned changes in complex transformation con- flects the notion that individual salesperson and organizational texts (Ahearne et al. 2010;Hartmann et al. 2018). Most prior conditions combine to create situational fit and thus facilitate sales force transformation studies seek to detail a clear set of salesperson engagement in solution selling. In the methods sec- specific, exclusive transformation drivers that lead to the de- tion, we explain the specifics and application of fsQCA, detail sired outcomes when applied universally to sales forces (e.g., the empirical study context, and present the operationalization of Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and the study constructs. After outlining the results pertaining to the Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson and Sohi 2017). However, necessary and sufficient conditions for solution selling engage- Ahearne et al. (2010) suggest that salesperson transformation ment, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of paths are idiosyncratic, because salespersons differ fundamen- our findings and some options for further research. tally in their ability to change. Thus, whether a sales force– wide planned change succeeds likely depends on the organi- zation’s ability to offer support that fits each salesperson’s Sales force solution selling transformation situational needs, in the given transformation context. We take this notion of idiosyncrasy as a starting point and affirm that The phenomenon of a sales force solution selling trans- sales force transformation is contingent on tailored organiza- formation is remarkably complex. Two streams of re- tional support, designed to match diverse salespersons’ situa- search are primarily pertinent for understanding it. tional needs. Sales force transformation research deals with the fun- Second, we offer initial insights into the requirements for damental context, namely, managing sales force–wide engaging salespersons in solution selling. Only a handful of prior planned changes. The solution selling literature helps solution studies even consider the roles and activities of sales- establish how solution selling differs from product sell- people during solution transformations (Koponen et al. 2019; ing and the requirements that solutions demand during a Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Ulaga andKohli 2018;Ulaga and sales force transformation. We present extant findings Loveland 2014). Research has established that salespeople’sso- from these perspectives to identify gaps in knowledge, lution selling involvement is vital, because it increases both their then introduce configurational thinking to establish our own and customers’ performance (Panagopoulos et al. 2017), but proposed conceptual framework. the optimal tactics for ensuring salespeople’s engagement in so- lution selling in the first place remain unclear. Our results suggest Sales force transformation research that engaging salespeople who previously were responsible for product selling in solution selling is possible—as long as each Many studies consider sales force–wide planned change, yet salesperson’s specific threshold conditions, such as her or his the relevant knowledge remains fragmented across different ability to practice value-based selling, are identified and ad- types of transformation contexts and diverse theoretical per- dressed(Terhoetal. 2017). Furthermore, transforming firms spectives. To gain an overview of research insights into the must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to implementation of sales force–wide planned change (Ahearne facilitate engagement. Instead, they should develop and offer et al. 2010), we carried out an extensive review of leading 141 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 general marketing (JM, JMR, JAMS), as well as B2B sales Wieseke et al. 2008, 2009). That is, sales force–wide transfor- focused journals (JPSSM, IMM). mations appear to result from an interplay of individual sales- We identified 26 studies that pertain to a sales force trans- person and organizational drivers, and the latter incor- formation and 4 studies discussing more general transforma- porate both management and subtler forms of social tions within the selling discipline, as listed in Appendix influence by peers. Table 10. (Sales force transformation articles that focus spe- We also find that prior research offers competing premises cifically on solution selling are discussed in the next section.) regarding the heterogeneity of transformation paths—see The summary review in Appendix Table 10 serves two pur- Appendix Table 10. Most studies predict uniform transforma- poses. First, it reveals some key conditions that affect complex tion paths and seek to identify a clear set of transformation sales force transformations. Second, it demonstrates the dom- drivers that will lead to desired outcomes (e.g., Hayati et al. inant focus in prior research on uniform rather than heteroge- 2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015; neous transformations, which suggest the potential benefits of Johnson and Sohi 2017). Yet some studies highlight that configurational thinking for understanding effective salespeople differ fundamentally in their ability to change implementations of sales force transformations. and argue that the “successful implementation of planned Regarding relevant transformation conditions, the review change interventions largely depends on identifying and ap- indicates the need to understand unique drivers of change in preciating the heterogeneity of individual traits that share specific transformation contexts. Business markets are char- meaning with the change” (Ahearne et al. 2010, p. 65). acterized by fundamental shifts, related to sales strategies, Contributions that recognize salespeople’s individual transi- technologies, and customer expectations, all of which impose tion paths mainly adopt a narrow focus though, such as deter- notable pressures on B2B firms to respond with planned mining how salespeople differ in their ability to change change initiatives (Cuevas 2018; Hartmann et al. 2018; (Ahearne et al. 2010) or the role of single moderators in af- Sheth and Sharma 2008;Wotruba 1996). Sales force transfor- fecting salespersons’ ability to change (see Mullins et al. mation research investigates change management efforts in 2019; Terho et al. 2017;Zablah etal. 2012). Thus, we know three main transformation contexts: the implementation of fairly little about how to manage overall sales force transfor- firm strategy and culture (e.g., Johnson and Sohi 2017), sell- mations by taking the profiles of individual salespeople into ing new products (e.g., Fu et al. 2009), or the adoption of new account. technology by the sales force (e.g., Hunter and Panagopoulos This review of sales force transformation research in turn 2015)—see Appendix Table 10. These diverse contexts do not indicates that implementing a sales force–wide planned reveal any generic transformation drivers; rather, our review change in a complex transformation context (e.g., solution implies that successful transformations depend on the ade- selling) likely requires considerations of multiple drivers of quate management of specific drivers of change that pertain change that operate on multiple levels, both individual and to a particular transformation context. organizational. Furthermore, the drivers can initiate multiple Although the specific requirements and drivers of change possible transformation paths among the heterogeneous sales seem context specific, we note evidence of three key driver force, reflecting the various profiles of individual categories of sales force–wide planned change, related to the salespersons. The scarcity of empirical investigations of these individual salesperson, sales managers, and social heterogeneous transformation paths offers little evidence re- influences—see Appendix Table 10. First, transformations garding how these identified principles operate in practice. depend on individual salesperson characteristics related to Therefore, we also consider solution selling research in order change, such as attitudes, abilities, and behaviors (Ahearne to establish the nature of the specific transformation context et al. 2010; Johnson and Sohi 2017; van der Borgh and we study and identify some drivers that might facilitate sales- Schepers 2018; Wieseke et al. 2008). Second, sales manage- people’s engagement in solution selling. ment can drive change through its emphasis, leadership styles, information provision, sales tools, organizational resources, or Solution selling research training (Hayati et al. 2018; Morgan and Inks 2001;Terho et al. 2017; van der Borgh and Schepers 2018; Zablah et al. Among recent service and marketing studies of B2B solutions 2012). Third, social influence by experts, peers, leaders, or (Eggert et al. 2014; Macdonald et al. 2016,Worm et al. 2017), appointed champions can lead to change (Avlonitis and the majority focus on the underlying concept of business so- Panagopoulos 2005; Keränen and Liozu 2020; Lam 2010; lutions and general requirements for seller and customer firms. Only a handful of solution studies explicitly address the role and activities of salespersons (e.g., Koponen et al. 2019; We combined search terms pertaining to selling (“sales force” OR “salesper- Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Ulaga andKohli 2018; Ulaga and son” OR “sales organization” OR “selling”) with those related to transforma- Loveland 2014). To develop a foundation for understanding tion (“transformation” OR “change” OR “shift” OR “new” OR “implementa- tion”), which resulted in 689 matches. the requirements that underlie salesperson engagement in 142 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 solution selling, we turn to solution selling literature to devel- The identified requirements for solution selling refer to op three main insights (Table 1): (1) the concept of solution both the individual salesperson and organizational levels. selling, (2) individual and organizational requirements associ- Researchers generally agree that solution selling requires a ated with it, and (3) its outcomes. different type of salesperson than product selling (Ulaga Research that investigates the conceptofsolution and Reinartz 2011), and in turn, they have identified sev- selling explicates differences between solution and prod- eral skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can facilitate solu- uct selling. Customer solutions are more than bundles of tion selling. For example, among their skills, salespeople customized, integrated goods and services; they entail need general intelligence (Ulaga and Loveland 2014)and joint supplier–customer processes (Macdonald et al. communication competence (Koponen et al. 2019); in 2016;Tulietal. 2007). Solution selling thus comprises terms of attitudes, solution sellers benefit from a learning four relational stages: (1) customer requirement defini- orientation, intrinsic motivation, and teamwork orientation tion, (2) customization and integration of goods and/or (Ulaga and Loveland 2014). Finally, the ability to practice services, (3) deployment, and (4) post-deployment sup- value-based selling is a fundamental requirement of solu- port (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Qualitative studies also tion selling, because solutions ultimately build on the suggest that it differs substantially from traditional prod- value-in-use concept (Macdonald et al. 2016; Storbacka uct selling. Compared with product selling, solution 2011; Terho et al. 2012). Among the organizational re- selling demands a stronger focus on co-creation relative quirements identified for solution selling, we limit our to persuasion, fuzzier solution specifications, higher net- review to sales force issues. That is, solution selling work complexity, and stronger relationship orientations requires managerial activities that help implement solu- (Ulaga and Loveland 2014). In turn, salespeople have tion selling among the sales force, including the estab- greater needs to understand customers’ businesses, craft lishment of clear role expectations (Ulaga and Kohli solutions that fit customer needs, orchestrate between 2018) and specific training initiatives (Storbacka et al. supplier and customer stakeholders, and maintain a con- 2011). Moreover, solution selling is more effective tinuous relationship with customers (Friend and Malshe when cross-functional cooperation among coworkers ex- 2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Sheth and Sharma ists (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuli etal. 2007). 2008;Ulaga andKohli 2018). Organizational engagement at the customer interface Table 1 Key solution selling research Research Stream/Focus Main Findings Selected Articles Stream 1: Concept of solution selling Process-based definition Solution selling comprises four relational processes: Tuli et al. 2007; Panagopoulos et al. 2017 (1) customer requirement definition, (2) customization and integration of goods and/or services, (3) deployment, and (4) post-deployment support. Difference to product selling Solution selling differs from product selling with regard to Ulaga and Loveland 2014 (1) the underlying tenet (co-creation vs. persuasion), (2) requirement definition (fuzzy hybrid offering vs. customer-initiated, good-centric), (3) network complexity (multiple stakeholders in customer and vendor organization vs. limited number of stakeholders), and (4) outcome orientation (share growth and contract renewal vs. deal closing). Stream 2: Requirements posed by solution selling Salesperson-level requirements Solution selling requires a different type of salesperson with Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012; specific (a) skills, like general intelligence or communication Ulaga and Loveland 2014 competence; (b) attitudes, like learning orientation, intrinsic motivation, or teamwork orientation; and (c) behaviors, like value-based selling. Organizational-level requirements Solution selling is supported by managerial practices, such as Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Friendand communication of expectations, training, facilitation of Malshe 2016; Storbacka et al. 2011; cross-functional cooperation, and strengthening relationship ties Tuli et al. 2007; Ulaga and Kohli 2018 with key customer stakeholders Stream 3: Consequences of solution selling Consequences Salesperson solution involvement enhances (a) salesperson-level Panagopoulos et al. 2017 and (b) customer-level sales performance. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 143 also is important, and several authors suggest that organizational levels (Meyer et al. 1993). Its central notion of strong customer relationships and customer ecosystem– strategic fit implies that different conditions in a particular specific skills can be influential (Friend and Malshe context are not important intrinsically; rather, their criticality 2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tuliet al. 2007). depends on how well they align (Venkatraman 1989). Finally, regarding the consequences of solution selling,so- Different conditions can form gestalts or coherent configura- lution selling literature has established that salespeople are tions (Ragin 2000) that lead to a specific outcome. The notion critical resources for achieving a successful solutions busi- of fit also entails several assumptions inherent to configuration ness. In particular, their solution involvement increases both theory, such as equifinality, causal asymmetry, and a distinc- salesperson-level and customer-level performance tion between necessary and sufficient conditions. Equifinality (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). suggests that multiple configurations of conditions can lead to Along with these important insights, our review suggests an outcome of interest (Doty et al. 1993). Causal asymmetry is two major gaps in the current solution selling literature. First, the notion that the same conditions can lead to different out- it tends to focus on the execution phase, to identify factors that comes, depending on how those conditions are arranged might enhance the effectiveness of solution selling practices (Ordanini et al. 2014). Moreover, configurational theory dis- (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Yet we lack a clear understanding tinguishes necessary conditions, which always must be pres- of what elements must be in place first, to ensure that sales- ent for an outcome to occur, from sufficient conditions,which people even become engaged in solution selling. Therefore, in may be present and, if so, help bring about the outcome. In this study, we address requirements for salespeople’ssolution sum, when conditions, relevant to the intended change, differ selling engagement, as a fundamental prerequisite of success- with the individual salesperson, salespeople still may achieve ful solution selling (Miao and Evans 2013; Verbeke et al. similar levels of solution selling engagement, as long as the 2011; Zablah et al. 2012). Engagement in a specific activity conditions fit, and some salesperson-specific, necessary is a central motivational concept, referring to a person’sin- threshold conditions exist, which ultimately cannot be com- vestment of energy into a task (e.g., Miao and Evans 2013; pensated for by greater alignment or fit. Rich et al. 2010). Similar to Zablah et al. (2012), we define To identify these relevant conditions, we rely on our review solution selling engagement as sales representatives’ invest- of sales force transformation and solution selling research. At ment of energy in the task, reflected in the time and effort they the individual salesperson level, we expect that prior solution devote to solution selling. selling experience makes it easier for salespeople to engage Second, existing research typically focuses on one or a few (Franke and Park 2006), because they gain skills and knowl- requirements of solution selling, without considering their in- edge related to applicable selling approaches, situations, and terplay. A sales force–wide transformation to solution selling customers (e.g., Spiro and Weitz 1990; Weitz et al. 1986). In is a tremendously complex undertaking though, and it is un- addition, their risk perceptions might create obstacles to sales- likely that any uniform, one-size-fits-all formula exists for people’s solution selling engagement. Perceptions of risks as- ensuring salesperson engagement. Therefore, we consider var- sociated with the sale of novel offerings can cause salespeople ious transformation conditions, operating at the levels of the to display conservatism (Sarin et al. 2012; van der Borgh and individual salesperson and the organization, and we investi- Schepers 2018). In a solution transformation context, risk per- gate how they might combine to facilitate salesperson solution ceptions might be especially prominent, because the transfor- selling engagement, using a configurational approach. mation requires salespeople to develop entirely new capabili- ties, even while they confront uncertainty about the market Configurational approach to salesperson solution acceptance of the new business model (Ulaga and Loveland selling engagement 2014). Moreover, solution selling engagement might require the salesperson’s ability to practice value-based selling To propose the conceptual framework in Fig. 1 that explains (Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012, 2017; Ulaga and salesperson solution selling engagement in solution transfor- Loveland 2014), because to achieve solution selling, customer mations, we integrate the preceding insights from sales force stakeholders need to perceive the supplier in its new role, as a transformation and solution selling research with configura- facilitator of the customer’s value-in-use processes tional theory (Venkatraman 1989). (MacDonald et al. 2016;Storbacka 2011). Configuration theory has been applied to a range of com- In terms of organizational conditions related to managers, plex, multidimensional phenomena at individual, group, and we draw on the theory of planned behavior and suggest that sales managers can encourage solution selling engagement by Solution selling engagement differs from solution selling involvement. The communicating role expectations about solutions and allocat- former captures the motivational core of solution selling; the latter pertains to ing resources to solution training (Fu et al. 2009, 2010; actual activities performed by salespeople, defined as “activities that help … Zoltners et al. 2001). Communicating role expectations estab- firms provide end-to-end solutions to the salesperson’scustomers” (Panagopoulos et al. 2017, p. 145). lishes subjective norms for new sales; solution training can 144 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Salesperson Conditions Organizational Conditions Management Solution Champions Solution Role experience expectations Risk Market FIT perceptions shaping behavior Value-based Training selling Salesperson Solution Selling Engagement Fig. 1 Conceptual framework enhance a salesperson’s sense of self-efficacy or beliefs in his configurations represent alternative pathways to engaging a or her ability to sell the new offering. heterogeneous sales force in solution selling in a complex In addition to these manager-related conditions, we incor- transformation context. porate social influences, in the form of solution champions’ market-shaping behavior. Recent sales literature recognizes that selling is embedded in broader social systems, in which Methodology institutional arrangements strongly influence exchange prac- tices (Hartmann et al. 2018). In our studied context for exam- We use fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) ple, customers might not be accustomed to enacting relational (Ragin 2008) to investigate the combinations of conditions solutions processes or could lack procurement practices con- that might facilitate solution selling engagement among a het- sistent with solutions buying. They also might not view the erogeneous sales force. fsQCA “bridges quantitative and qual- product seller as a legitimate actor in the solutions selling itative approaches” (Ragin 2008, p.82) and ismostsuitedto context, such that they are unwilling to adjust their resource identify combinations of multiple conditions that lead to a integration practices toward this seller. Thus, sellers likely desired outcome (Kraus et al. 2018). Unlike more quantitative need to shape customer’s mindsets and practices purposefully, approaches which build on correlations, fsQCA examines log- to be consistent with solutions buying. In turn, salespeople ical connections between conditions and an outcome to deter- might benefit from input from dedicated solution champions mine whether some single or a set of conditions are necessary (Keränen and Liozu 2020), who engage in market-shaping or sufficient for an outcome to occur (Kraus et al. 2018). behaviors (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen et al. 2019; Applying a set-theoretic logic, each individual observation is Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). Through market shaping, in- regarded as a whole, consisting of a specific combination of stitutional arrangements that govern the roles and behaviors of conditions that is related or unrelated to an outcome of inter- various stakeholders can be shaped intentionally by a firm that est, and is not diaggregated into separate variables (Fiss 2011). engages in activities aimed at redesigning the exchange, fsQCA originally stems from the political science and so- reconfiguring networks of actors, or reforming institutions ciology literature. In recent years, fsQCA has also gained in- (Nenonen et al. 2019). creasing popularity in marketing and service research. Studies In summary, by applying configurational theory to evi- that adopt it have provided novel insights into service innova- dence from solution selling and sales force transformation tion attributes (Ordanini et al. 2014), configurations of drivers literature, we predict that salesperson engagement in solution for successful service infusion (Forkmann et al. 2017), and the selling represents a complex phenomenon, in which combina- interplay of market orientation and marketing performance tions of conditions likely explain the outcomes better than measurement (Frösén et al. 2016), among others. While individual conditions. Thus, as in Fig. 1, we expect individual fsQCA was originally developed for analyzing qualitative da- salesperson conditions and organizational conditions to inter- ta with relatively small sample sizes, it is increasingly used to act, which determines the level of situational fit that can facil- also analyze large samples of up to 1000 cases (Schneider and itate salesperson engagement in solution selling. The resulting Eggert 2014). As a consequence, fsQCA can be considered an 145 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 alternative to conventional data analysis methods for samples causal asymmetry, in that the same condition can lead to different of any size. In choosing the appropriate methodology, re- outcomes depending on how it is combined with other condi- searchers should mainly consider the research aim and the tions. This also implies that the absence of a condition that leads assumed causal structure of a research phenomenon to an outcome does not necessarily imply the absence of the (Schneider and Eggert 2014). In the paragraph that follows, outcome (Ragin 2008). Given these characteristics, fsQCA is we contrast fsQCA with conventional data analysis methods, considered advantageous when researchers are interested in iden- i.e., regression and cluster analysis, and also delineate when tifying the central causes of a certain outcome (“causes-of-ef- each of these approaches is most appropriate. fects”) and when the links between different conditions are con- sidered to be complex, that is, when an outcome has more than Contrasting fsQCA with conventional data analysis one cause and when these causes work together to cause the methods outcome (Kraus et al. 2018), as is the case with our research. In contrast, conventional data analysis methods such as re- We argue that fsQCA is the best method to capture the causal gression or cluster analyses often fail to capture the nuances of complexity inherent to applications of configurational theory causal complexity (Frösén et al. 2016), since they address only (Böhm et al. 2017; Frösén et al. 2016). FsQCA investigates some of the assumptions of configuration theory, as shown in how several causal conditions jointly (as configurations) ex- Table 2. Regression analysis estimates the average or net effect plain an outcome of interest (Fiss 2011; Ragin 2000), thereby of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable identifying the central causes of a desired outcome (“causes- (Mahoney and Goertz 2006). This way, researchers are able to of-effects”, Mahoney and Goertz 2006). In doing so, fsQCA determine how much a particular variable influences the outcome allows to incorporate all the central assumptions of configura- (“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz 2006). Regression tion theory, namely, conjunctural causation, equifinality, analyses typically identify “the one and only model” that best causal asymmetry, and the necessity versus sufficiency of represents the empirical data (Schneider and Eggert 2014,p. causal conditions (Table 2). 314). Although interaction effects can be used to test configura- First, fsQCA reveals how several conditions combine to cre- tional arguments to some extent, they generally are limited to ate an outcome (Fiss 2011). In other words, fsQCA builds on the combinations of two or three variables, because higher-order premise that the interplay of conditions rather than single condi- interactions would be difficult to interpret and could cause tions constitute an outcome of interest, which is termed multicollinearity problems (Frösén et al. 2016). In regression conjunctural causation (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Second, it analysis, variables are also always regarded as both necessary addresses equifinality by allowing several different configura- and sufficient, so only one specific form of causality can be tions to lead to the same outcome (Fiss 2007). Third, fsQCA revealed (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Moreover, regression can distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions and thereby analysis implicitly assumes unifinality (i.e., the maximum out- provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between a come is achieved only if all positively [negatively] correlated condition and an outcome (Fiss et al. 2013). A condition is con- variables are maximized [minimized]) and causal symmetry sidered necessary when the focal outcome can only be obtained (i.e., the effect of an increase in a variable is equal to and opposite in the presence of that condition; it is sufficient when the condi- the effect of a decrease of the same magnitude in that variable) tion always leads to the focal outcome (Fiss 2007). Combining (Fiss et al. 2013). In sum, regression analyses are most appropri- these situations, fsQCA can uncover four different forms of cau- ate when researchers aim to test how much a particular variable sality (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Fourth, fsQCA accounts for influences the outcome (“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz Table 2 Suitability of different methods for testing causal complexity fsQCA Regression Cluster Analysis Research Aim Identify combinations of conditions Estimate average net effects of Identify distinct groups of that lead to an outcome; single variables; cases that are similar Causes-of-effects Effect-of-causes in several variables Assumed Causal Structure Links between conditions Links between variables are Internal causal structure is are complex linear and additive not relevant Addressed Assumptions of Configuration Theory Uncovers conjunctural causation ✓ (✓) ✓ Identifies equifinal solutions ✓✓ Distinguishes between necessity vs. sufficiency ✓ Allows for causal asymmetry ✓ 146 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 2006) and when the links between the variables are assumed to With its solution business, this firm seeks positive impacts for be additive and linear rather than complex and configurational the businesses of its key customers, such as by simplifying the (Schneider and Eggert 2014). construction process and making it easier for building owners to Cluster analysis can identify distinct groups of cases that manage the building use experience. This change in vision ac- are similar with regard to a set of variables. The resulting companied a novel offering that integrates different building sub- group memberships can be used to predict an outcome of systems into an intelligent solution. On the offering level, it entails interest, which produces results similar to fsQCA (Cooper the combination of various product and service components to and Glaesser 2011). Nevertheless, there are major conceptual constitute the smart building solution. Initially, the firm sold and differences between fsQCA and cluster analysis, including the delivered these solutions through a dedicated, global project unit. inability of cluster analysis to distinguish necessary from suf- To implement an organization-wide transformation to the solu- ficient conditions (Frösén et al. 2016) or account for asymmet- tion business, the firm later developed a modular solution offering ric relationships (Fiss 2011). Compared with fsQCA, cluster that could be sold by salespeople nested in its various subsidiaries analysis also is more inductive, because membership in a spe- around the globe. Previously, salespeople targeted by the trans- cific cluster is driven at least partly by the distribution of formation had been responsible solely for sales of the company’s variables within a particular sample (Cooper and Glaesser core product offerings. Given that situations in which companies’ 2011). Moreover, cluster analysis does not help to determine salespeople simultaneously sell existing and new offerings are those aspects of a configuration that are central to the outcome hard to implement (van der Borgh et al. 2017), the firm of interest (Fiss 2011), involving limited insights into the in- established a dedicated transformation program. We leveraged ternal causal structure of a configuration. As a result, cluster our close access to key decision-makers in the firm, combined analysis is mainly suited for research with a descriptive ap- with our understanding of prior literature, to identify pertinent proach, e.g. when researchers aim to identify distinct groups conditions for solution selling engagement in this relevant case. of cases with regard to a set of variables, without being inter- To understand the conditions that prompt salesperson solution ested in how the different variables work together (Fiss 2007). selling engagement, we collected multilevel and multisource sur- Summing it up, fsQCA allows researchers to gain a more fine- vey data from salespeople, sales managers, and solution cham- grained understanding of the causal complexity underlying a pions in the company’s various sales organizations. We specific research phenomenon. In our case, it enables us to iden- approached 34 local sales organizations that operate in different, tify combinations of individual and organizational conditions that international sales areas. They are country subsidiaries of varying together induce salespeople’s engagement in solution selling, sizes, tasked with selling the firm’sglobalofferingintheir re- rather than individual conditions that are universally relevant to spective geographical regions. The sales organizations are ex- solution selling engagement. Moreover, fsQCA allows us to un- pected to handle all types of customers and offerings except for cover several equifinal ways to engage salespeople in solution highly complex, fully tailored, large-scale solutions that exceed a selling, depending on their heterogeneous starting position. specified monetary threshold and thus get sent to the global project organization. The fsQCA methodology requires matched Empirical context and data collection triadic data with no missing values for the studied conditions; we were able to collect complete triadic data sets from 26 local sales According to Schneider and Wagemann (2010), familiarity with organizations, representing 76% coverage. The 8 excluded orga- the empirical context is advantageous when conducting fsQCA, nizations lacked management (3), champion (2), or salesperson because it facilitates the choice of relevant conditions and helps (3) responses. verify the resulting configurations. We have engaged in a long- From the sales organizations with complete data sets, we term research collaboration with a European manufacturer of collected 26 sales manager responses and 23 solution cham- intelligent building solutions that continues to undergo an pion responses (3 champions worked with two organizations organization-wide solution transformation process, so we have each). The 26 units employed a total of 624 salespersons. The notable access to relevant cases (i.e., individual salespersons solution transformation had started one year before the survey, nested in sales organizations). This research collaboration has but the units had reached different phases. In most of them, spanned more than 10 years, and the primary study context per- some salespeople still had not been tasked with selling the tains to the solution transformation process. The company em- new solutions offering. Therefore, to identify relevant infor- ploys over 50,000 employees and reports revenues of nearly 10 mants, the salesperson survey started with five qualification billion euros. It operated for more than a century as a product questions about the salesperson’s (1) attendance at the firm’s manufacturer, so its organization, processes, and technologies global solution offering launch event, (2) attendance at the strongly evolved according to this established product business. firm’s local solution offering launch event, (3) attendance at But in the past decade, it has engaged in concerted efforts to training dealing with the solution offering, (4) current involve- transform from a product manufacturer to a solution provider, ment in solution sales, and (5) the next year’s planned involve- ment in solution sales. Negative responses led to the dedicated to delivering an enhanced building use experience. 147 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 informant’s disqualification from this study. We sent the ques- responses with missing values, we ended with 184 usable tionnaire to 624 salespeople and received 290 responses, for a responses, for a total response rate of 29%. Considering that response rate of 45%. When we excluded those who did not many salespeople had not yet been involved in the solution pass the qualification questions, we retained 200 solution selling transformation though, the effective response rate is salespeople in 26 units, such that 69% of the respondents were likely higher. Table 3 summarizes the respondents’ involved in the solution selling transformation. After dropping demographics. Table 3 Respondent demographics SALESPEOPLE CHAMPIONS MANAGERS Sales Experience N Percent Sales Experience N Percent Sales Experience N Percent 5< 45 24.5 5< 8 34.8 5< 5 19.2 5-9 37 20.1 5-9 4 17.4 5-9 5 19.2 10-14 39 21.2 10-14 4 17.4 10-14 2 7.7 15-19 24 13 15-19 5 21.7 15-19 4 15.4 20-24 23 12.5 20-24 0 0 20-24 2 7.7 25> 16 8.7 25> 0 0 25> 4 15.4 Total 184 100 Missing 2 8.7 Missing 4 15.4 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Gender N Percent Gender N Percent Gender N Percent 167 90.8 21 91.3 23 88.5 Male Male Male 10 5.4 1 4.3 1 3.8 Female Female Female Missing 7 3.8 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Education level N Percent Education level N Percent Education level N Percent Master or higher 52 28.3 Master or higher 7 30.4 Master or higher 11 42.3 Bachelor 56 30.4 Bachelor 10 43.5 Bachelor 11 42.3 Vocational degree 36 19.6 Vocational degree 6 26.1 Vocational degree 3 11.5 High school 26 14.1 High school 0 0 High school 1 3.8 Other 13 7.1 Other 0 0 Other 0 0 1 .5 23 100 26 100 Missing Total Total 184 100 Total Education type N Percent Education type N Percent Education type N Percent Technical degree 85 46.2 Technical degree 13 56.5 Technical degree 12 46.2 Business degree 50 27.2 Business degree 5 21.7 Business degree 10 38.5 Other 33 17.9 Other 4 17.4 Other 2 7.7 Missing 16 8.7 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100 Age N Percent Age N Percent Age N Percent 25< 1 .5 25< 0 0 25< 0 0 25 – 29 10 5.4 25 - 29 0 0 25 - 29 0 0 30-34 24 13 30-34 4 17.4 30-34 0 0 35-39 37 20.1 35-39 3 13 35-39 2 7.7 40-44 36 19.6 40-44 6 26.1 40-44 2 7.7 45-49 25 13.6 45-49 3 13 45-49 8 30.8 50-54 24 13 50-54 3 13 50-54 7 26.9 55-59 16 8.7 55-59 3 13 55-59 4 15.4 60> 11 6 60> 1 4.3 60> 1 3.8 Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Missing 2 7.7 Total 26 100 148 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 4 Construct items, loadings, and reliability statistics Items Loading α CR AVE Solution selling engagement (based on Fu et al. 2009) .96 .97 .92 Compared to other salespeople, how much time do you spend on selling solutions? .94 Compared to other salespeople, how intensively do you work to sell solutions? .98 Compared to other salespeople, how much overall effort do you put into selling solutions? .97 Perceived solution risk (adapted from Sarin and O’Connor 2009) .89 .95 .90 Solution sales can harm my sales performance. .95 Solution sales can harm my existing customer relationships. .95 Solution sales can harm my reputation among colleagues at my firm.* – Solution experience –– – I have sales experience with offerings that are comparable to our solutions. 1.00 Value-based selling (based on Terho et al. 2017) .86 .90 .69 I use a value-based selling approach. .89 Based on a profound knowledge of my customers’ business, I show how our products/ .88 services will improve their company’s performance. I work towards improving my customers’ bottom line. .70 I focus on identifying opportunities to improve customers’ business profits. .84 Communication of role expectations (based on Homburg et al. 2010) .94 .95 .84 I regularly instruct our salespeople to spend their time and attention to solution sales. .79 I keep telling our salespeople that they must gear up for solution sales. .94 I intensively encourage our salespeople to promote solution solutions. .93 I push our salespeople to solution sales. .93 Solution training (adapted from Homburg et al. 2009; Jelinek et al. 2006) .92 .94 .81 Our salespeople receive thorough training regarding the technologies for our solutions. .93 Our salespeople receive thorough sales process–related training for solution sales. .90 Our salespeople receive thorough customer business–related training for solution sales. .90 Our salespeople continuously receive training that enhances their ability regarding solution sales. .93 Champion market-shaping behavior (new scale) .88 .92 .74 I regularly meet key stakeholders in this industry to showcase our solution vision. .88 I systematically invest time and effort to make customers rethink their purchasing preferences. .92 I actively influence key opinion leaders in our industry to remove customer constraints for solutions. .86 I work hard to change customers’ existing purchasing practices to match with our solutions. .76 Anchors: 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Anchors: 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience). Notes: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted. * Removed indicator. Measures the degree to which salespeople think solution selling might harm their sales performance and existing customer relation- We used established scales to study the transformation condi- ships. The scale for value-based selling comes from Terho tions whenever possible (see Table 4). Unless otherwise noted, et al. (2017) and measures the extent to which salespeople have all items rely on seven-point Likert scales, with 1 indicating used value-based selling approaches in their previous sales ac- strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement. The tivities. To measure solution experience, we ask salespeople to solution selling engagement, perceived solution risk, solution rate their past sales experience with offerings that are compara- experience, and value-based selling data come from the sales- ble to the launched solutions, on a semantic differential scale person survey. To measure solution selling engagement out- from 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience). comes, we use a three-item scale from Fu et al. (2009)that On the organizational level, we consider three key condi- captures the time, energy, and overall effort salespeople invest tions. From the management data, we assess sales managers’ in selling the launched solution. Perceived solution risk relies on communication of role expectations regarding solutions, items adapted from Sarin and O’Connor (2009), encompassing reflected in the extent to which sales managers stress solutions J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 149 Table 5 Correlations, means, and Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 standard deviations 1. Solution selling engagement .96 2. Perceived solution risk −.01 .95 3. Solution experience .38** −.08 – 4. Value-based selling .08 -,18* .19* .83 5. Communication of role expectations .08 -,17* .05 ,15* .90 6. Solution training .01 −.14 .01 .07 .63** .92 7. Champion market-shaping behavior −.07 −.11 .01 .09 .20** −.02 .86 Mean 4.17 2.78 4.11 5.54 5.00 4.09 5.21 Standard deviation 1.47 1.53 1.80 0.92 1.10 1.39 1.52 N 184 184 184 184 23 26 26 * p < .05. ** p < .01. (Significance is based on two-tailed tests.) Note: The square root of the average variance extracted appears on the diagonal in bold. and encourage salespeople to sell them (Homburg et al. 2010). construct definition, five field interviews with champions and The managers also indicate the extent of solution training for managers involved with market-shaping initiatives, and rele- their sales force (Homburg et al. 2009; Jelinek et al. 2006). For vant prior literature. To ensure the clarity and relevance of the solution champions, we focus on market-shaping behavior de- scale indicators, we reviewed the questionnaire with two senior signed to modify customer-side features and influence industry executives who designed the global solution transformation norms (Nenonen et al. 2019). This market-shaping behavior is program implemented by our partner sales organization. The measured with a new scale, with items developed based on the data analysis supports the validityand reliabilityofthe scales, Step 1: Calibration and Transformation of Conditions Derive measures for theoretically relevant conditions and outcome Determine thresholds for nonmembership, full membership, and indifference Transform variables into fuzzy set scores to capture the degree of membership in each condition and outcome Step 2: Identification of Necessary Conditions Check whether any condition or its negation is necessary for the outcome Step 3: Construction of Truth Table Build Truth Table List all possible configurations of conditions Identify whether configurations lead to the outcome Identify Relevant and Consistent Configurations Determine thresholds for frequency and consistency Limit truth table to relevant and consistent configurations Step 4: Identification of Sufficient Conditions Use Boolean logic to reduce configurations to its most simple logical expression Evaluate configurations using consistency and coverage measures Distinguish “core” and “periphery” conditions Step 5: Interpretation of Results Evaluate and interpret the final set of configurations that consistently lead to the outcome Fig. 2 Analytical procedure of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis INTERPRETATION PREPARATION ANALYSIS PHASE PHASE PHASE 150 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 with Cronbach’s alphas (>.70), composite reliabilities (>70), Step 1: Calibration and transformation of conditions. average variances extracted (>.50), and factor loadings (>.70) that exceed recommended minimum thresholds (Table 5). In a first step, the different measures for the condi- Fornell and Larcker’s(1981) criterion also is met. We sum tions and the outcome are calibrated and transformed the validated scales for the fsQCA. Table 5 contains the de- into fuzzy set scores ranging from 0 to 1, indicating scriptive statistics and correlations of the measures. the degree of membership in each condition. This effort requires determining thresholds for nonmembership, full membership, and indifference for each variable. The cal- Analytical procedure and empirical results ibration should build on theoretical anchors instead of of the fsQCA empirical means to classify membership versus non- membership (Fiss 2011). In line with Frösén et al. FsQCA usually involves five steps (Fig. 2), which we specify (2016), we use theoretically meaningful thresholds to here, together with the empirical study results. We conduct calibrate our Likert scales, with 2 (disagree) indicating our analysis using the fs/QCA 3.0 software package (Ragin the threshold for non-membership (fuzzy set score of and Davey 2016). .05), 6 (agree) indicating the threshold for full member- Table 6 Calibration Construct Original Scale Thresholds Used in Calibration Solution selling engagement Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Perceived solution risk Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Solution experience Semantic differential scale (from 1 “no Threshold for full membership 7(“extensive experience”) experience” to 7 “extensive experience”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 Threshold for non-membership 1(“no experience”) (fuzzy score of .05) Value-based selling Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Communication of role Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) expectations disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Solution training Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) Champion market-shaping Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly Threshold for full membership 6(“agree”) behavior disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”) (fuzzy score of .95) Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”) Threshold for non-membership 2(“disagree”) (fuzzy score of .05) 151 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 7 Necessary conditions for solution selling engagement selling engagement theoretically can be achieved in the pres- ence or absence of all other conditions. Condition Consistency Coverage Salesperson conditions Step 3: Construction of truth table. Perceived solution risk .35 .77 In the third step, we construct a truth table that lists all ~ Perceived solution risk .84 .64 possible combinations of conditions, then assign empirical Solution experience cases to the different configurations and determine if they lead .71 .76 to the outcome or not (Fiss 2011). We can reduce the truth ~ Solution experience table to relevant and consistent configurations by applying .48 .57 minimum frequency and consistency thresholds. The truth Value-based selling table for our study, listing all logically possible combinations .95 .63 of the six conditions, is in Appendix Table 11.It consists of64 ~ Value-based selling configurations (2 ; k = number of conditions). However, .22 .81 when a necessary condition is identified in the second step Organizational conditions of fsQCA analysis, truth table rows that do not contain this Communication of role expectations condition should be excluded from the minimization process .86 .66 (Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Wagemann et al. 2016). ~ Communication of role expectations .36 .76 When we exclude rows without value-based selling, the truth Solution training table encompasses 32 configurations, and we observe 18 of .67 .68 them in our sample. The remainders are mainly configurations ~ Solution training that do not feature any communication of role expectations, .54 .68 which is reasonable; planned strategic transformations usually Champion market-shaping behavior attract substantial management attention. Thus, as is typical .81 .62 for fsQCA studies, the logically excluded remainders repre- ~ Champion market-shaping behavior sent unlikely empirical configurations (Ragin 2008). In .35 .73 turn, we feel confident that limited diversity is not a concern. Notes: ~ indicates the absence of a condition We reduced the truth table to the set of meaningful configu- rations by identifying those consistently associated with high ship (fuzzy set score of .95), and 4 (neither agree nor solution selling engagement. In line with prior studies, we used a consistency score of .75 and a frequency threshold of disagree) indicating the crossover point (fuzzy set score three observations per configuration (Ragin 2008). Nine con- of .50). For solution experience, measured with a se- figurations meet these thresholds and represent configurations mantic differential scale with two polarized response that consistently lead to solution selling engagement. options, we use the scale endpoints 1 (no experience) and 7 (extensive experience) as thresholds for full non- Step 4: Identification of sufficient conditions. membership and membership as well as their mid value as the crossover point (see Table 6). The fourth step continues with the identification of suffi- Step 2: Identification of necessary conditions. cient conditions or configurations of conditions. In this step, we apply Boolean algebra to reduce relevant configurations The second step checks whether any condition or its nega- linked with the outcome to their most simple, logical expres- sions (Ragin 2006). In detail, the truth table algorithm sim- tion are necessary for the outcome of interest. A single condi- plifies the logical expressions that describe the configurations tion is necessary if it is always present (absent) when the based on redundancy levels (e.g., if A*B*C→ X and A*B* ~ outcome occurs (Fiss 2007), that is, when the consistency C→ X, then A*B→ X) (Fiss 2011;Ragin 2008). The score for a specific condition exceeded a threshold of .90 resulting configurations can then be evaluated using consis- (Schneider and Wagemann 2010). The consistency scores in tency and coverage measures. Consistency indicates the suf- our study ranged between .22 and .95, and one condition (value-based selling) exceeds the .90 threshold (Table 7): ficiency of a configuration and the extent to which con- figurations uniformly lead to the outcome (Ragin 2006); Salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condition to achieve solution selling engagement. Otherwise, solution coverage captures the empirical relevance of a 152 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 configuration (Fiss 2007;Ragin 2006). Within each between .79 and .92, so each identified configuration configuration, fsQCA can distinguish core and peripher- is consistently associated with salespeople’s solution al conditions, by comparing parsimonious and interme- selling engagement. In terms of coverage, the five iden- diate solutions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions exhibit a tified configurations capture approximately 77% of strong causal relationship with the outcome, whereas membership in the outcome; the overall solution ex- peripheral conditions have a weaker relationship with plains a substantial proportion of salespeople’ssolution the outcome but reinforce the central features of the selling engagement. Because the unique coverage values core conditions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions are part also are greater than 0, all configurations are relevant of both the intermediate and parsimonious solutions; for explaining solution selling engagement. Within dif- peripheral conditions only appear in the intermediate ferent configurations, we distinguish core from periph- solution. eral conditions by comparing the intermediate and par- In our case, we reduced the set of nine meaningful simonious solutions. configurations to five configurations, using the fuzzy truth table algorithm implemented in fsQCA software Step 5: Interpretation of results. (Ragin 2008). Table 8 reports the results obtained with the intermediate solution; Appendix 3 presents the over- Finally, we must interpret the fsQCA solution. The all solution using formal Boolean notation. We evaluate identified solution contains five configurations that con- solution quality with consistency and coverage criteria. sistently result in solution selling engagement among Consistency should not fall below .75 (Fiss 2011), as is salespeople (see Table 8). As seen from the results, the case for the overall solution and each individual salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condi- configuration. That is, the consistency scores range tion, such that they engage in solution selling only if Table 8 Sufficient conditions for solution selling engagement J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 153 they have practiced a value-based selling approach in with heterogeneous starting positions. Organizational their prior selling tasks. Otherwise, solution selling en- support turns out to be vital for most salespeople, but gagement theoretically can be achieved in the presence not every form of organizational support is equally es- or absence of the remaining conditions, depending on sential for every type of salesperson. In particular, the the situational fit. results suggest that salespeople who regard solution sell- Configuration C1 features exceptional salespeople ing as risky require exhaustive support, by both man- with prior solution selling experience, a value-based agers and solution champions. If, instead, salespeople selling capability, and no solution selling risk percep- do not perceive the transition as risky, management tions. In this optimal but rare situation, salespeople and champion support can act as substitutes. Some ex- can transition into solution selling without any organi- ceptional salespeople (who know how to practice value- zational support; their solution selling engagement is based selling, have prior experience with solution sell- high even if they never receive communications about ing, and do not perceive risk) can engage without any role expectations, training, or solution champion sup- organizational support. port. Configurations C2a and C2b characterize salespersons with no perceived solution selling risk who practice value-based selling. Experience with solu- Discussion and conclusions tions is not of concern for these salespeople. They suc- cessfully engage in solution selling when sales manage- Theoretical implications ment encourages the sales force by communicating role expectations and when they either receive training or This research contributes to both sales force transforma- champion support. Configuration C3 indicates that prior tion and solution selling literature. First, we take the solution experience and value-based selling can result in notion of salesperson heterogeneity as a starting point engagement, irrespective of perceived risk, as long as and apply configurational thinking to demonstrate that a there is a simultaneous presence of management-level large-scale sales force transformation features equifinal support in terms of communication of role expectations paths to the intended outcome among a heterogeneous and champion-level support. In this configuration, prior sales force. Prior studies have, with a few exceptions, solution selling experience represents the core condition, sought to identify universal antecedents that will gener- and the other conditions reinforce it. Finally, salespeo- ally result in intended outcomes when applied across the ple in Configuration C4 confront high perceived solu- entire sales force (e.g., Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg tion selling risk, a core condition that is causally more et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson important than the other conditions. In this situation, and Sohi 2017). However, as suggested by Ahearne salespeople only engage in solution selling if they re- et al. (2010) and shown in this study, salespeople differ ceive exhaustive support from both managers and cham- in their ability to change whereby a universal applica- pions, such that management communicates expectations tion of transformation conditions across the salesforce and offers training, and solution champions create op- may not be the best approach to achieve complex portunities through their market-shaping efforts. As transformations. such, Configuration 4 seems to reflect the most chal- Second, our findings extend solution selling research lenging starting position for a sales force transformation with novel insights about the individual and organiza- to solution selling. In contrast, Configurations 2a, 2b, tional conditions of engaging product-centric salespeople and 3 demand sales managers to invest in some but in solution selling. Beyond the recognition that solution not all forms of organizational support. selling is important and challenging to implement, prior In sum, our results reveal that it is not a single condition literature provides relatively little insights on how to alone that explains salespeople’s engagement in solution sell- foster the shift from product selling to solution selling ing, but rather combinations of conditions, thereby illustrating (Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Ulaga and Loveland 2014). the causal complexity inherent in solution transformations. On a more general level, our results challenge and ex- The results support the notion that solution selling en- tend established thinking about the possibility of engag- gagement is contingent on the fit between individual ing product-oriented salespeople in solution selling. On salesperson-level conditions and organizational support the one hand, we confirm that not all salespeople are conditions. Specifically, the five identified configura- willingorabletomove intosolutionselling(Ulagaand tions represent equifinal paths to engaging salespeople Loveland 2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). On the other 154 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 hand, our results contest the prevailing notion that a market does not fit customers’ established resource in- transformation to solution selling requires large-scale re- tegration practices, it requires the negotiation of institu- cruitments of new salespeople (Ulaga and Loveland tional resistance (Hartmann et al. 2018), which often is 2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). As long as they have beyond the capacity of any individual salesperson. value-based selling capabilities, heterogeneous salespeo- Solution champions act on behalf of the organization ple can be engaged in solution selling through appropri- to help the salesperson redesign the exchange, reconfig- ate organizational support tailored to the salesperson’s ure networks of actors, or reform institutions (Baker individual needs. et al. 2019;Nenonenetal. 2019;Storbacka and With regard to the specific conditions of solution Nenonen 2011). selling engagement, two findings are particularly impor- tant, given that they have not been addressed in prior Managerial implications solution selling research. First, risk perceptions emerged as a critical condition of salespeople’s engagement in Our research provides several suggestions for how manufac- solution selling. While prior literature has mainly turers should manage a sales force–wide transformation from stressed the ability-related aspects of salesforce transfor- product selling to solution selling (see Table 9). mation, such as individual skills and capabilities (e.g., First, with regard to the general management of sales Bonney and Williams 2009; Ulaga and Loveland 2014), force transformations, our results stress the fit between our findings indicate that there is a need to consider individual salesperson characteristics and different forms salespersons’ risk perceptions and ways to mitigate of organizational support. Building on this, we suggest these perceptions through the provision of tailored orga- a systematic planning of large-scale transformations that nizational support for the transformation. Second, our includes two major steps. Transformation management results highlight the vital role of solution champions, should begin by creating salesperson profiles, based on which resonates with recent calls to adopt an institution- key conditions central to the transformation in question. al perspective in marketing and sales research (e.g., Then, management can proceed by developing a tailored Baker et al. 2019; Hartmann et al. 2018; Vargo and organizational support program. Such an approach pro- Lusch 2016). When a new solution introduced to the vides salespeople with individualized support while also Table 9 Managerial implications Instrumental Area Key Findings Suggestions General Management of � Solution selling engagement is contingent � Systematic planning of transformation management Sales Force Transformation on the fit between individual should include (1) the creation of salesperson characteristics and organizational support profiles and (2) the development of tailored organizational support programs that fit those profiles Sales Force Selection � Few exceptional salespeople engage in � Identify most appeling candidates to form a and Targeting solution selling virtually without any smaller-scale solution sales force that kicks off the organizational support solution transformation (salespeople with high value-based selling abilities, solution selling experience, and low risk perceptions) � Value-based selling is a threshold competency � Screen salespeople for their ability to practice for solution selling engagement value-based selling � Introduce tools and trainings to enhance value-based selling capabilities if necessary � Salespeople with high risk perceptions � Reduce risk perceptions such as by offering solution have the highest need for organizational incentives, setting realistic objectives, and support communicating the benefits of solutions Forms of Organizational � Role expectations are an important � Convince sales managers of the relevance of the Support facilitator of solution selling engagement solution business and the importance of communicating clear role expectations � Champion support can act as substitute � Introduce dedicated solution champions for management support � Solution champions might be chosen from the smaller-scale solution sales team that initially kicked off the solution transformation 155 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 helping the organization to target its scarce organiza- related performance. Whereas our study offers valuable in- tional resources most efficiently. sights into the critical conditions that drive salespersons’ so- Second, our results offer actionable guidelines to the selec- lution selling engagement, further research is needed to detail tion and targeting of salespeople to participate in solution its performance links and contingencies. selling. We show that some exceptional salespeople can en- Second, to study the complex interplay of individual gage in solution selling without requiring virtually any and organizational conditions, we collaborated with one organizational support; those salespeople exhibit value- firm, which granted us vast access to its salespeople, based selling abilities, have solution selling experience, sales managers, and solution champions. Yet the data and express low risk perceptions. These rare salespeople refer exclusively to one solution provider, working in are likely critical to initiating the first steps of a firm- a specific industrial setting, so the results cannot be wide solution transformation and might be part of a automatically generalized to a broader population. smaller-scale sales team to kick off the solution trans- Nevertheless, we posit that the particular transformation formation. By sharing internal success stories, this initial conditions identified in this study are likely to apply to sales team can create positive pressure that encourages the selling of most standardized, modularized solutions. other salespeople to also engage in solution selling. Still, we encourage future research to confirm these For broader transformation roll-outs, our results provide findings in different empirical contexts. important recommendations for identifying salespeople pro- Third, the results point to a crucial role of solution files and targeting them with appropriate support. All sales- champions, as facilitators of solution selling engagement people should be able to practice value-based selling, so man- in an industrial sales force. Noting their importance, it agers should screen existing sales forces for the presence of would be worthwhile to determine further how solution this threshold competency. Beyond that, salespeople with dif- champions’ market-shaping activities shape salespeoples’ ferent profiles can be engaged, through appropriate forms of risk perceptions and help overcome customers’ institu- organizational support, mainly determined by their risk per- tional resistance in a solution transformation context. ceptions. Because the need for support diminishes among Fourth, given that fsQCA places a practical limit on salespeople with low risk perceptions, management could at- the number of conditions feasible to include in the anal- tempt to reduce risk perceptions by offering solution incen- ysis (Wagemann et al. 2016), we chose to focus on tives, setting realistic objectives, and persuasively communi- salesperson and organizational conditions. In doing so, cating the benefits of solution selling for customers, the com- we indirectly address the customer perspective, for in- pany, and individual salespeople. stance, by incorporating salespeople’s risk perception Third, managers can build on our research to select effec- that solution selling might harm their existing customer tive forms of organizational support for sales force transfor- relationships. The need for solution champions’ market mations. Communicating role expectations emerges as an es- shaping efforts reflects the readiness of customers to sential facilitator of solution selling engagement among sales- buy solutions. Nevertheless, we note that the customer people; only a few exceptional salespersons shift into solution perspective is still remarkably absent in solution selling selling without it. Top-level management should therefore research and therefore encourage future research to ex- convince sales managers of the relevance of the solution busi- plicitly incorporate customer conditions as an additional ness and stress the importance of communicating clear expec- level of analysis. tations to the sales force. Moreover, we identified solution Finally, by focusing on selected conditions in the champions as a potential substitute for management support. context of a solution transformation spanning both indi- Manufacturers should therefore consider introducing dedicat- vidual and organizational levels, we established novel ed solution champions within specific business units to facil- insights about the nature of complex salesforce transfor- itate solution transformations. These could be exceptional mations. These exploratory insights pave the way for salespersons who have been part of a solution-specific sales future research to develop and test a new theory of team during the initial phases of the solution transformation. salesforce transformation that builds on the assumption that salesforce-wide transformations are contingent on Limitations and further research the fit between individual and organizational conditions that interact to facilitate engagement of a heterogenous The limitations of this study offer promising avenues for fur- salesforce in planned organization change. We encour- ther research. First, we focus on salesperson solution selling age such theorizing efforts, incorporating multiple orga- engagement, a critical first step toward realizing a sales force– nizations across various transformation contexts. wide solution transformation. It logically is needed for subse- Funding Information Open access funding provided by University of quent solution selling performance, yet engagement does not Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital. automatically translate into solution selling or customer- 156 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Appendix 1 Table 10 Sales Force Transformation Research (full references available on request) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Mullins et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Salesperson, leader, customer, and sales team factors explain salesperson motivation to X X X Not uniform N = 433 Salespersons; (2019)JAMS culture and strategy: customer value conduct value-based selling. Prevention-focused salespersons move to value-based N = 70 Managers orientation selling only when the sales team monitoring climate is lower. Keränen and Sales force–wide implementation of firm Organizational value champions can facilitate customer value management through four X Uniform Qualitative, interviews Liozu (2020) culture and strategy: customer value role configurations related to the level (individual; organizational) and continuance with 59 managers IMM management (temporary; permanent). Various championing roles drive change among internal and external stakeholders. Hayati et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Sales managers’ transactional and transformational leadership and central peers’ strategy XX Uniform N = 398 salespersons; (2018)JAMS culture and strategy: new strategy role commitment drive salesperson strategy role commitment. Non-committed peers N = 60 Managers with high network centrality can hinder these effects. Terho et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Salesperson adoption of value-based selling requires specific motivations and abilities, X X Not uniform N = 944 Salespersons; (2017)IMM culture and strategy: customer value such as learning orientation and networking skills. Organizational opportunities, in the N = 43 sales directors orientation form of value assessment tools, can help less apt salespersons adopt value-based selling behaviors and boost the performance effects of value-based selling. Johnson and Sohi Sales force–wide implementation of firm Implementation motivation, opportunity, and ability drive salesperson strategy X X Not uniform N = 277 Salespersons (2017)IMM culture and strategy: New offering implementation behaviors. These variables are in turn driven by involvement in strategy strategy development, role autonomy, and training. The effects of motivation and ability on strategy implementation behaviors are contingent on perceived opportunities, which both boost and weaken these effects. Boichuck et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Transformational leadership and supportive error management policy prevent X Uniform Longitudinal, N =221 / (2014)JM culture and strategy: preventing sales salespersons from being selling oriented when facing sales failures. N = 635 Salespersons; oriented behaviors Sarin et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Successful implementation of strategic change depends on management’s ability to affectXX Uniform N = 828 salespersons in (2012)JMR culture and strategy:new strategy salesperson reward and risk perceptions for implementing the change. 204 branches Chakrabarty Sales force–wide implementation of firm Top management long-term orientation and top management emphasis drive customer X Uniform N = 241 salespersons et al. (2012) culture and strategy: customer orientation among salespeople through social learning. JPSSM orientation Ahearne et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Some salespeople are better at adapting to change than others. Learning-oriented X Not uniform Longitudinal, N =400 (2010)JM culture and strategy: sales force wide salespersons have suboptimal performance at the beginning of change but ultimately Salespersons planned change have steeper performance recovery curves and higher re-stabilization levels. Performance orientation has the opposite effect. Lam et al. (2010) Sales force–wide implementation of firm Market orientation diffuses to sales representatives as a social learning process from “Top X Uniform N = 1528 Salespersons; JM culture and strategy: Market management to Middle managers and Expert peers” who act as role models. Actors’ N = 285 managers; Orientation network size hinders the informal route of learning through expert peers but not the N = 43 directors formal route through middle managers. Wieseke et al. Sales force–wide implementation of firm Organizational identification transfers top-down from business unit managers to middle XX Uniform N = 1005 Salespersons; (2009)JM culture and strategy: Organizational management to salespersons. Leader-follower dyadic tenure and charismatic leader- N =394 Sales identification ship moderate the social identification effects. managers; N = 22 BU managers XX Uniform N = 85 salespersons 157 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 10 (continued) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Grant & Bush Sales force–wide implementation of firm Sequential and serial socialization tactics, highlighting role of providing information to (1996) JPSSM culture and strategy: Organizational salesperson and socialization by peers, are positively connected to organizational value congruence value congruence among the sales force. van der Borgh New product selling Salesperson conservatism toward new products hinders engagement in efforts to sell newXX Uniform N = 172 salespersons and Schepers products but makes their efforts to sell new products more effective. Conservative N = 31 Managers (2018)JAMS selling behaviors and new product sales are driven by salespeople’s risk assessments, moderated by new product information–guided risk framing, which determines the weight of the performance risk. Chen et al. New product selling Output-, behavior-, and knowledge-based sales management controls drive salespeople’s X Uniform N = 315 Salespersons (2015)IMM perceptions of organizational support for being innovative in new product selling and thereby affect new product sales performance Zablah et al. New product selling A job demands-resources model identifies determinants of salesperson new product X X Not uniform Conceptual (2012) JPSSM selling outcomes. The model is a dual-process theory whereby salesperson selling demands and selling resources affect new product selling engagement and burnout. Resources and demands interact to create these outcomes, calling for a balance be- tween drivers. Kauppila et al. New product selling Organizational support and control systems affect salespersons’ reluctance to sell X X Uniform Conceptual (2010)IMM radically new products, both directly and indirectly through individual salesperson factors. Fu et al. (2010) New product selling Salesperson attitude and self-efficacy toward new products drive selling intentions; X Uniform Longitudinal, N =226 JM subjective norms are less effective drivers and also weaken other positive effects. Salespersons Fu et al. (2009) New product selling Assigned goals drive new product sales effort and sales with an inverted U-shaped effect. X X Uniform Longitudinal N =143 JPSSM Self-set goals fully mediate the link between assigned goals and selling effort. salespersons Fu et al. (2008) New product selling Product innovativeness has a positive and customer newness has a negative impact on X Uniform N =493 / N =362 JPSSM salespeople’s intention to sell new products, affecting new product performance salespersons indirectly. Wieseke et al. New product selling Expected customer demand and sales managers’ new brand adoption drives salesperson X X Not uniform N = 310 salespersons (2008)JAMS new brand adoption. For salespeople who perceive lower expected customer demand, N = 112 Managers the management adoption effect on their adoption is stronger. Rochford and New product selling Adjustment of sales quotas is positively connected to new products’ launch success X Uniform N = 112 sales managers Wortruba (1996)JAMS Hunter and Adoption of sales technology Salesperson’s normative and continuance commitment to technological change drive X Uniform N = 303 Salespersons Panagopoulos sales technology infusion and thereby customer orientation and sales performance. (2015)IMM Casio et al. Adoption of sales technology Salesperson perceived alignment of top management and immediate supervisors’ XX Uniform N = 292 salespersons (2010)IMM commitment to SFA is an important influence on salespeople’s adoption. Homburg et al. Adoption of sales technology Regional and sales managers’ SFA adoption has positive effects on subordinates’ SFA XX Uniform N = 1040 sales-persons; (2010)JAMS adoption. These social effects explain SFA adoption beyond the effects of traditional N = 416 Managers TAM variables. N = 22 directors Avlonitis and Adoption of CRM technology Perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness drive CRM acceptance. Social XX Uniform N = 240 salespersons Panagopoulos influences, such as supervisor and competitive influences, drive CRM acceptance (2005)IMM beyond the TAM variables. 158 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 10 (continued) Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization Uniformity Design of Drivers of the Transformation Sp. Soc. Org. Jones et al. Adoption of sales technology Personal innovativeness, attitude toward the system, and organizational facilitating X X Uniform N = 85 salespersons (2002) JPSSM conditions drive SFA system utilization. Morgan and Inks Adoption of sales technology Accurate user expectations, user influence, and training are positively related to XX Uniform N = 131 salespersons (2001) acceptance of SFA technology. Hartmann et al. General change of selling thought: A systemic and institutional perspective recognizes that selling unfolds over time and is – Conceptual (2018)JM Service dominant logic / institutional embedded in broader social systems. A service ecosystems perspective on selling view to selling highlights the interaction between actors aimed at creating and maintaining “thin crossing points” through the ongoing alignment of institutional arrangements and the optimization of relationships. This view calls for attention to broader sets of actors who participate in selling processes. Cuevas (2018) General change of selling thought: Contemporary professional selling is transforming by: (1) increasing emphasis of hybrid – Qualitative, interviews IMM Transformation of professional offerings, requiring deep customer business understanding; (2) more with 37 managers selling in B2B markets boundary-spanning and formalized sales relationships; and (3) sales roles that move away from isolated functions toward broader integration of end-to-end business pro- cesses. Transformation is driven by new types of buyer behavior and customer requirements, new information and communication technologies, and increasing globalization, concentration and competition. Sheth and General change of selling thought: Role Traditional product-focused sales organizations will evolve in two directions. First, – Conceptual Sharma (2008) of product to service shift for selling technologies will reduce some traditional sales functions and face-to-face contact. IMM organizations Second, important customers are likely to be treated through customer-focused sales organizations and global account management teams. The shifts affect the section, training, and recruitment of salespeople, as well as their roles. Wotruba (1996) General change of selling thought: Industrial selling is driven by new trends involving customers, competitors, and – Conceptual IMM Transformation of Industrial selling companies. The changes in markets drive changes related to position (towards managing customer value, customer need advocacy, acting as internal resource for policy making), process (establishing trust and obtaining information for offering development), and people (customer need diagnosing skills, team skills, creating an empowering atmosphere). This study Sales force solution selling Salesperson solution selling engagement depends on the fit between salesperson and X X X Not uniform N = 184 salespeople, transformation organizational conditions, which vary across the heterogeneous sales force. N = 23 champions, N= 26 sales managers Notes: SFA = sales force automation, TAM = technology acceptance model, CRM = customer relationship management J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 159 Ap Appe pen ndi dixx 1 2 Table 11 Truth Table Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping Number Behavior 01 1 1 1 1 36 00 1 1 1 1 16 00 1 1 0 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 8 00 1 1 1 0 6 01 1 1 0 1 5 01 1 0 0 0 5 11 1 1 0 1 4 10 1 1 1 1 4 01 1 1 1 0 3 01 1 1 0 0 2 01 0 1 1 1 2 10 0 1 1 1 2 11 1 1 1 0 1 11 1 0 0 0 1 01 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 1 1 0 1 10 1 1 0 0 1 10 1 0 0 0 1 10 0 1 0 1 1 00 1 1 0 0 1 00 1 0 0 0 1 00 0 1 1 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 0 11 1 0 0 1 0 11 1 1 0 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 1 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 11 0 1 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 01 1 0 1 1 0 01 1 0 0 1 0 01 1 0 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 1 0 01 0 0 1 1 0 01 0 0 0 1 0 01 0 1 1 0 0 01 0 1 0 0 0 01 0 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 0 1 0 160 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Table 11 (continued) Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping Number Behavior 10 1 0 1 1 0 10 1 0 0 1 0 10 1 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 1 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 10 0 1 1 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 00 1 0 1 1 0 00 1 0 0 1 0 00 1 0 1 0 0 00 0 1 0 1 0 00 0 0 1 1 0 00 0 0 0 1 0 00 0 1 1 0 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Appendix 3. Boolean Algebra Representation of the Overall Solution We can represent the overall solution using formal Boolean notation, which leads to the following solution formula: ∼Risk Perceptions*Experience*Value−based Selling*∼Role Expectations*∼Training*∼Market Shaping þ ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*∼Training*Market Shaping þ ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*∼Market Shaping þ Experience*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Market Shaping þ Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*Market Shaping→Solution Selling Engagement: Note: * indicates the logical ‘and’; + represents the logical ‘or’; ~ indicates the absence of a condition. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 161 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap- typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as Journal, 54(2), 393–420. you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro- Fiss, P. C., Sharapov, D., & Cronqvist, L. (2013). Opposites attract? vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and made. The images or other third party material in this article are included econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 191– in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Forkmann, S., Henneberg, S. C., Witell, L., & Kindström, D. (2017). Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by Driver configurations for successful service infusion. Journal of statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain Service Research, 20(3), 275–291. permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statis- tics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,382–388. Franke, G. R., & Park, J. E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 693–702. References Friend, S., & Malshe, A. (2016). Key skills for crafting customer solu- tions within an ecosystem: A theories-in-use perspective. Journal of Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Mathieu, J. E., & Bolander, W. (2010). Why are Service Research, 19(2), 174–191. some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change? Frösén, J., Luoma, J., Jaakkola, M., Tikkanen, H., & Aspara, J. (2016). JournalofMarketing,74(3), 65–79. What counts versus what can be counted: The complex interplay of Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2005). Antecedents and conse- market orientation and marketing performance measurement. quences of CRM technology acceptance in the sales force. Industrial JournalofMarketing,80(3), 60–78. Marketing Management, 34(4), 355–368. Fu, F. Q., Jones, E., & Bolander, W. (2008). Product innovativeness, Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing, customer newness, and new product performance: a time-lagged changing markets: Institutional work as market shaping. Marketing examination of the impact of salesperson selling intentions on new Theory, 19(3), 301–328. product performance. JournalofPersonalSelling&Sales Böhm, E., Eggert, A., & Thiesbrummel, C. (2017). Service transition: A Management, 28(4), 351–364. viable option for manufacturing companies with deteriorating finan- Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2009). The motivation hub: Effects of cial performance? Industrial Marketing Management, 60(1), 101– goal setting and self-efficacy on effort and new product sales. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 277–292. Boichuk, J. P., Bolander, W., Hall, Z. R., Ahearne, M., Zahn, W. J., & Fu,F.Q., Richards,K.A., Hughes,D. E., &Jones,E.(2010).Motivating Nieves, M. (2014). Learned helplessness among newly hired sales- salespeople to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes, people and the influence of leadership. Journal of Marketing, 78(1), subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 61–76. 95–111. Grant, E. S., & Bush, A. J. (1996). Salesforce socialization tactics: Bonney, L. F., & Williams, B. C. (2009). From products to solutions: The Building organizational value congruence. Journal of Personal role of salesperson opportunity recognition. European Journal of Selling & Sales Management, 16(3), 17–32. Marketing, 43(7/8), 1032–1052. Guido, P. (2012). How we got beyond selling products. Harvard Cascio, R., Mariadoss, B. J., & Mouri, N. (2010). The impact of manage- Business Review, 90(7/8), 107–108. ment commitment alignment on salespersons' adoption of sales Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new force automation technologies: An empirical investigation. theoretical Foundation for Selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1–18. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1088–1096. Hayati, B., Atefi, Y., & Ahearne, M. (2018). Sales force leadership during Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (2012). The role of top strategy implementation: A social network perspective. Journal of management in developing a customer-oriented sales force. the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 612–631. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(4), 437–449. Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the Chen, A., Peng, N., & Hung, K. P. (2015). Managing salespeople strate- marketing concept at the employee–customer interface: The role of gically when promoting new products–incorporating market orien- customer need knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 64–81. tation into a sales management control framework. Industrial Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Kühnl, C. (2010). Social influence on sales- Marketing Management, 51,141–149. people’s adoption of sales technology: A multilevel analysis. Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2011). Using case-based approaches to ana- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168. lyse large datasets: A comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy clus- Hunter, G. K., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2015). Commitment to techno- ter analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, logical change, sales force intelligence norms, and salesperson key 14(1), 31–48. outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 50,162–179. Cuevas, J. M. (2018). The transformation of professional selling: Jelinek, R., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). A lon- Implications for leading the modern sales organization. Industrial gitudinal examination of individual, organizational, and contextual Marketing Management, 69,198–208. factors on sales technology adoption and job performance. Journal Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–23. organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Johnson, J. S., & Sohi, R. S. (2017). Getting business-to-business sales- Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250. people to implement strategies associated with introducing new Eggert, A., Hogreve, J., Ulaga, W., & Münkhoff, E. (2014). Revenue and products and services. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, profit implications of industrial service strategies. Journal of Service 137–149. Research, 17(1), 23–39. Jones, E., Sundaram, S., & Chin, W. (2002). Factors leading to sales force Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configura- automation use: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personal selling tions. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198. & sales management, 22(3), 145–156. 162 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 Kauppila, O. P., Rajala, R., & Jyrämä, A. (2010). Antecedents of sales- Sarin, S., & O’Connor, G. C. (2009). First among equals: The effect of people's reluctance to sell radically new products. Industrial team leader characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross- Marketing Management, 39(2), 308-316. functional product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 188–205. Keränen, J., & Liozu, S. (2020). Value champions in business markets: Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2010). Standards of good practice in Four role configurations. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. 84–96. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. Koponen, J., Julkunen, S., & Asai, A. (2019). Sales communication com- Schneider, C. Q., & Wagemann, C. (2012). Set-theoretic methods for the petence in international B2B solution selling. Industrial Marketing social sciences: A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Management, 82,238–252. Cambridge University Press. Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set qual- Schneider, M. R., & Eggert, A. (2014). Embracing complex causality itative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and inno- with the QCA method: An invitation. Journal of Business Market vation research – Theriseofamethod. International Management, 7(1), 312–328. Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14,15–33. Sheth, J. N., & Sharma, A. (2008). The impact of the product to service Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The diffusion of market shift in industrial markets and the evolution of the sales organization. orientation throughout the organization: A social learning theory Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 260–269. perspective. JournalofMarketing, 74(5), 61–79. Spiro, R. L., & Weitz, B. A. (1990). Adaptive selling: Conceptualization, Macdonald, E., Kleinaltenkamp, M., & Wilson, H. N. (2016). How busi- measurement, and nomological validity. Journal of Marketing ness customers judge solutions: Solution quality and value in use. Research, 27(1), 61–69. JournalofMarketing,80(3), 96–120. Storbacka, K. (2011). A solution business model: Capabilities and man- Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quan- agement practices for integrated solutions. Industrial Marketing titative and qualitative research. Political Analysis, 14,227–249. Management, 40(5), 699–711. Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational Storbacka, K., & Nenonen, S. (2011). Scripting markets: From value approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management propositions to market propositions. Industrial Marketing Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195. Management, 40(2), 255–266. Miao, C. F., & Evans, K. R. (2013). The interactive effects of sales control Storbacka, K., Polsa, P., & Sääksjärvi, M. (2011). Management practices systems on salesperson performance: A job demands–resources per- in solution sales – A multilevel and cross-functional framework. spective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 73–90. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 31(1), 35–54. Morgan, A. J., & Inks, S. A. (2001). Technology and the sales force: Terho, H., Eggert, A., Ulaga, W., Haas, A., & Böhm, E. (2017). Selling Increasing acceptance of sales force automation. Industrial value in business markets: Individual and organizational factors for Marketing Management, 30(5), 463–472. turning the idea into action. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, Mullins, R., Menguc, B., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2019). Antecedents 42–55. and performance outcomes of value-based selling in sales teams: A Terho, H., Haas, A., Eggert, A., & Ulaga, W. (2012). ‘It's almost like multilevel, systems theory of motivation perspective. Journalofthe taking the sales out of selling’—Towards a conceptualization of Academy of Marketing Science,1-22. value-based selling in business markets. Industrial Marketing Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., & Windahl, C. (2019). Capabilities for mar- Management, 41(1), 174–185. ket-shaping: Triggering and facilitating increased value creation. Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking cus- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 617–639. tomer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Ordanini, A., Parasuraman, A., & Rubera, G. (2014). When the recipe is JournalofMarketing,71(3), 1–17. more important than the ingredients: A qualitative comparative anal- Ulaga, W., & Kohli, A. (2018). The role of a solutions salesperson: ysis (QCA) of service innovation configurations. JournalofService Reducing uncertainty and fostering adaptiveness. Industrial Research, 17(2), 134–149. Marketing Management, 69,161–168. Panagopoulos, N. G., Rapp, A. A., & Ogilvie, J. L. (2017). Salesperson Ulaga, W.,& Kowalkowski, C. (2017). Service strategy in action: A solution involvement and sales performance: The contingent role of practical guide for growing your B2B service and solution business. supplier firm and customer-supplier relationship characteristics. Service Strategy Press. JournalofMarketing,81(4), 144–164. Ulaga, W., & Loveland, J. M. (2014). Transitioning from product to Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of service-led growth in manufacturing firms: Emergent challenges in Chicago Press. selecting and managing the industrial sales force. Industrial Ragin, C. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their Marketing Management, 43(1), 113–125. consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufactur- Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. ing firms combine goods and services successfully. Journal of Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Marketing, 75(6), 5–23. Ragin, C. C., & Davey, S. (2016). Fuzzy-set/qualitative comparative van der Borgh, M., & Schepers, J. (2018). Are conservative approaches to analysis 3.0. California: University of California Press. new product selling a blessing in disguise? Journal of the Academy Reinartz, W., & Ulaga, W. (2008). How to sell services more profitably. of Marketing Science, 46(5), 857–878. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 90–96. van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. (2017). Alternative mech- Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: anisms guiding salespersons’ ambidexterous product selling. British Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of JournalofManagement, 28,331–353. Management Journal, 53(3), 617–635. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An exten- Rochford, L., & Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The impact of sales management sion and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy changes on new product success. Journalofthe Academyof of marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23. Marketing Science, 24(3), 263–270. Venkatraman, N. (1989a). The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward Sarin, S., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A. K. (2012). Implementing changes verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management in marketing strategy: The role of perceived outcome-and process- Review, 14(3), 423–444. oriented supervisory actions. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), Verbeke, W., Dietz, B., & Verwaal, E. (2011). Drivers of sales perfor- 564–580. mance: A contemporary meta-analysis. Have salespeople become J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2021) 49:139–163 163 knowledge brokers? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Worm, S., Bharadwaj, S. G., Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2017). When 39(3), 407–428. and why do customer solutions pay off in business markets? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 490–512. Wagemann, C., Buche, J., & Siewert, M. B. (2016). QCA and business Wotruba, T. R. (1996). The transformation of industrial selling: Causes research: Work in progress or a consolidated agenda? Journal of and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 25(5), 327– Business Research, 69,2531–2540. Weitz, B. A., Sujan, H., & Sujan, M. (1986). Knowledge, motivation, and Zablah, A. R., Chonko, L. B., Bettencourt, L. A., Allen, G., & Haas, A. adaptive behavior: A framework for improving selling effectiveness. (2012). A job demands-resources (JD-R) perspective on new prod- JournalofMarketing,50(4), 174–191. uct selling: A framework for future research. Journal of Personal Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of Selling & Sales Management, 32(1), 73–87. leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123–145. Zoltners, A. A., Sinha, P., & Zoltners, G. A. (2001). The complete guide Wieseke, J., Homburg, C., & Lee, N. (2008). Understanding the adoption to accelerating sales force performance. New York: American of new brands through salespeople: A multilevel framework. Management Association. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 278–291. Wise, R., & Baumgartner, P. (1999). Go downstream. Harvard Business Publisher’snote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic- Review, 77(5), 133–133. tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 3, 2020

There are no references for this article.