The Influence of Personal Characteristics and Coping Strategies on Salespersons Turnover Intentions

Jeffrey E. Lewin and Jeffrey K. Sager Understanding what contributes to salesperson turnover helps reduce turnover and its deleterious consequences. This study examines the interactive effects of salespersons personal characteristics and coping strategies on turnover intentions. Findings suggest that self-efficacy combined with problem-focused coping significantly reduces salespersons turnover intentionsmore so than self-efficacy alone. In contrast, while an external locus of control orientation combined with emotion-focused coping significantly increases turnover intentions, the increase is not as great as from external locus of control alone. Neither the combined effect of self-efficacy and emotion-focused coping nor external locus of control and problem-focused coping are found to significantly influence turnover intentions.

Salesperson turnover remains a significant problem for most organizations, as continuously changing marketplaces, rising customer expectations, and rapidly evolving technologies create increasingly stressful challenges (Jones et al. 2007). These stressors, coupled with the need to balance the conflicting demands of the customer and the company (Nonis and Sager 2003), help fuel turnover among salespeople. A 10-year study (19962006) of 3,700 publicly traded companies finds salesperson turnover averaged 39 percent annually (Hrehocik 2007). The costs associated with salesperson turnover include recruiting and training expenses, lost revenues, and customer dissatisfaction (Brashear et al. 2003; Darmon 1990). Some estimate turnover costs average three to four times the salespersons annual compensation (Hrehocik 2007; Van Clief 1991); placing these costs in the tens of millions of dollars for many firms. Thus, understanding how to minimize salesperson turnover is a key component of organizational profitability. Extant studies examine various causes of salesperson turnover, including role stress (Johnston et al. 1990), manager behavior (Jaramillo and Mulki 2008), and organizational and personal characteristics (Babakus et al. 1999; Jolson and Comer 1997). Personal characteristics heretofore examined include salespersons self-efficacious beliefs and attribution orientation (Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles 2002; Mallin

Jeffrey E. Lewin (Ph.D., Georgia State University) Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business, The University of North Texas, Denton, TX, lewinj@unt.edu. Jeffrey K. Sager (Ph.D., Texas A&M University) Professor of Marketing, College of Business, The University of North Texas, Denton, TX, sager@unt.edu.

and Mayo 2006). A related stream of research examines the relationship between coping strategies and various aspects of professional selling, including performance (Strutton and Lumpkin 1993), time management (Nonis and Sager 2003), wellness (Porter, Kraft, and Claycomb 2003), and emotional exhaustion (Lewin and Sager 2008). However, no study to date examines the interactive effect of salespersons personal characteristics and coping style, and their combined effect on turnover. This is an important gap in the literature, as human behavior (action) is driven by a host of underlying beliefs, perceptions, motivations, and experiences. These various behavior drivers intertwine, combining into a complex cognitive and affective mosaic. Therefore, studying turnover by examining only the discrete influence, rather than the combined influence, of important motivators provides a limited, somewhat incomplete understanding of this significant problem. This study, therefore, is a first step toward filling this important gap in the literature. More specifically, utilizing responses from 495 industrial salespeople, this study investigates the interactive effect between salesperson characteristics (self-efficacy and external locus of control) and salesperson coping strategies (problem focused and emotion focused) on turnover intention. The findings from this investigation should assist sales managers in reducing turnover and its associated costs, thereby increasing firm performance. The remainder of this paper is organized in the following manner. First, a review of the relevant literature leads to the proposed model and associated hypotheses. Next, the research methodology is discussed and the hypothesized interaction relationships are tested using the structural equation modeling approach suggested by Ping (1995; see AppendixA). Finally, the study findings are presented followed by a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXX, no. 4 (fall 2010), pp. 355370. 2010 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved. ISSN 0885-3134 / 2010 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134300405

356 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 1 Hypothesized Model of Salespersons Personal Characteristics, Coping Strategies, and Turnover Intention

LITERATURE REVIEW, PROPOSED MODEL, AND STUDY HYPOTHESES Stress in the Selling Profession A significant body of research supports the relationships between organizational stressors and job-related outcomes (e.g., Kelly and Hise 1980; Kemery et al. 1985; Rhoads, Singh, and Goodell 1994). In general, findings across these studies indicate that stressors significantly decrease employees job performance and satisfaction and significantly increase employees job anxiety and turnover intentions. Within the personal-selling literature, role stressors are well-established constructs (Brown and Peterson 1993). Research in this stream convincingly demonstrates the pervasiveness and effect of role stressors on salesperson behavior and sales-related outcomes (e.g., Boles, Johnston, and Hair 1997; Jones et al. 2007). It is important to note that although some prior work suggests that manageable levels of workrelated role stress may improve performance by stimulating salespeople to excel (e.g., Singh, Goolsby, and Rhoads 1994), other research suggests that excessive role stress is detrimental to the achievement of both organizational and individual goals (e.g., Lewin and Sager 2008). Considering both sides of this debate, we adopt the position previously offered by Lewin and Sager as follows:
In essence, then, the question may becomeHow does the sales organization or the sales manager determine, establish, and monitor manageable levels of role stress? Is this an achievable goal in most sales organizations? Given the negative outcomes associated with high levels of role stress, for example emotional exhaustion, absenteeism, and turnover (e.g., Boles, Johnston, and Hair, 1997; Babakus et al., 1999), it may be best to error on the side of too little, rather than too much, role stress in the workplace. (2009, p. 803)

therefore do not directly examine its influence. Instead, we focus on an examination of the personal characteristics of salesperson self-efficacy and locus of control. More specifically, and as shown in Figure1, both self-efficacy and external locus of control are posited to influence salespersons turnover intentions. Further, type of coping strategy is positioned as an important moderator of the effect of self-efficacy and external locus of control on salespersons turnover intentions. The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Turnover Self-efficacy refers to peoples belief in their capability to mobilize the cognitive and behavioral resources needed to exercise control over environmental events (Bandura and Jourden 1991). People with stronger self-efficacious beliefs tend to set higher personal goals and to remain committed to those goals in the face of adversity (Bandura 1986). They also view challenges as tasks to be mastered and recover quickly from setbacks (Bandura 1995). Self-efficacy is particularly relevant to success in sales where adversities (e.g., rejection, stress, competition) are unavoidable aspects of the profession (Jones et al. 2007; Porter, Kraft, and Claycomb 2003). When salespeople hold strong selfefficacious beliefs, they are better able to adjust to adversity and more likely to remain committed to assisting customers, making sales, and meeting quotas (Krishnan, Netemeyer, and Boles 2002). In contrast, for salespeople who lack confidence in their professional abilities, these adversities increase their sense of helplessness and decrease their commitment toward goal achievement, often leading to withdrawal from clients, the organization, or the profession (Lewin and Sager 2007). The direct relationship between self-efficacy and turnover has been studied outside the sales and marketing literature with mixed results. For example, in a study within the banking industry, Schaubroeck, Lam, and Xie (2000) found a negative relationship between self-efficacy and turnover, indicating bank employees with higher self-efficacious beliefs reported

Given the above, we accept role stress as an unavoidable characteristic of the professional selling environment, and

Fall 2010 357

lower turnover intentions. However, Troutman, Burke, and Beeler (2000), in a study of public accounting firms, found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and turnover, indicating auditors higher in self-efficacy reported higher turnover intention. In contrast, Jex and Gudanowski (1992) found no significant relationship between self-efficacy and turnover in a study of nonfaculty university employees. Within the professional selling literature, we find no study examining the direct link between self-efficacy and turnover. However, some studies examine the relationship between self-efficacy and job performance, whereas others examine the relationship between performance and turnover intention. These studies combined indirectly suggest a possible link between self-efficacy and turnover. For example, selfefficacy is shown to positively influence performance among salespeople for medical supplies (Brown, Cron, and Slocum 1998), cell phone services (Krishnan, Netemyer, and Boles 2002), and pharmaceuticals (Ahearne, Mathieu, and Rapp 2005; Jaramillo and Mulki 2008). Separately, performance is shown to negatively influence turnover intention among salespeople for a consumer products manufacturer (Johnston et al. 1987), a computer manufacturer (Fern, Avila, and Grewal 1989), and a business services provider (Babakus et al. 1999). Thus, whereas these prior works suggest that salesperson self-efficacy may influence turnover indirectly through performance, the direct connection between salesperson self-efficacy and turnover intention has not heretofore been examined. Taken together, however, the above works tentatively suggest the following: Hypothesis 1: Self-efficacy is negatively related to turnover intentions among salespeople. The Influence of External Locus of Control on Turnover In work-related settings, locus of control refers to the expectancy that, for example, performance, promotions, and salary increases are controlled either by ones own (internal) actions or by other (external) factors (Spector 1988). Individuals who attribute outcomes to external factors often view these forces as beyond their control (Churniss 1980), thus believing success or failure is a matter of luck (Boyd, Lewin, and Sager 2009). These beliefs manifest, for example, in feelings such as being successful is a matter of luck or success is more dependent on who you know than what you know. Extant literature suggests that external sources of failure for salespeople include difficult customers, uncooperative managers, or ineffective sales organizations. For example, when salespeople attempt to complete sales and their efforts are unsuccessful, external-type salespeople frequently blame their customers (e.g., Dixon, Spiro, and Forbes 2003). As a result, these salespeople avoid further interaction with these unappreciative customers (Dixon and Schertzer 2005;

Teas and McElroy 1986). Alternatively, when external-type salespeople fail to meet quota, they frequently attribute the failure to an unreasonable sales manager or an inequitable sales organization (Lewin and Sager 2007), leading to their belief that sales success and making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. In these cases, the result may either directly or indirectly lead to turnover intentions (Babakus et al. 1999; Brown and Peterson 1993). Studies examining the link between external locus of control and turnover intention report mixed results. For example, Harvey, Harris, and Martinko (2008) find external locus of control negatively influencing turnover intention in employees working within several different industries and organizations. In contrast, Donnelly, Quirin, and OBryan (2003) and Parsons, Herold, and Leatherwood (1985) find external locus of control positively influencing turnover intention among public auditors and hotel room attendants, respectively. Within the sales and marketing literature, we find no study examining the direct relationship between locus of control and turnover intention. Further, while several works suggest a relationship between salesperson locus of control and performance (e.g., Mallin and Mayo 2006; Roberts, Lapidus, and Chonko 1997; Schulman 1999), only one study empirically tests and finds support for this relationship (Sager, Strutton, and Johnson 2006). Thus, as discussed above regarding self-efficacy and turnover, while several works suggest a link between locus of control and turnover, no work empirically examines this suggested relationship. Nevertheless, given the proposition that an external locus of control orientation likely will lead to avoidance and withdrawal as discussed in the opening paragraphs of this section, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2: External locus of control is positively related to turnover intentions among salespeople. Coping and Turnover Coping is defined as an individuals response to stressful situations involving important, potentially negative, consequences (Latack 1986). When these types of situations arise, individuals frequently utilize cognitive or behavioral efforts to manage the stressor (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). The type of coping style employed usually is based on whether or not the individual believes the situation can be changed by his or her efforts. Within the extant literature, a range of dimensions are used to assess coping style. However, many of these coping schemas posit that individuals respond to stress using either a problem-oriented or emotion-oriented coping strategy (Latack and Havlovic 1992). Problem-focused coping is directed at taking action to alter the stressor, whereas emotion-focused coping is directed at reducing emotional distress through, for example, avoidance or fantasy (Latack 1986).

358 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

The model proposed in Figure 1 positions problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping as moderating the effect of personal characteristics on turnover intention. Within the sales literature, the problem-focused/emotion-focused coping conceptualization previously has been used to examine, for example, salespersons optimism/pessimism (Strutton and Lumpkin 1993), presentation effectiveness (Strutton and Lumpkin 1994), stress (Nonis and Sager 2003), and emotional exhaustion (Lewin and Sager 2008). However, no study examines the effect of coping on salespersons turnover intentions, either directly (main effect) or indirectly (moderator effect). Outside the sales and marketing literature, the relationship between coping style and turnover intentions has received limited attention with mixed results. For example, emotionfocused coping is found to positively influence turnover intentions among hotel managers (Zellars et al. 2004). Problem-focused coping is found to negatively influence turnover intentions for counselors in a juvenile detention facility (Mayes and Ganster 1988) as well as for employees in ten organizations undergoing structural change (Cunningham 2006). In contrast, no relationship is found between problemfocused coping and turnover intentions among staff in a psychiatric hospital (Begley 1998), employees in a Canadian school district (Kirchmeyer and Cohen 1999), or public service providers (Fugate, Kinicki, and Prussia 2008). In this work, we chose to focus only on the moderating effect of coping and (1)salespersons self-efficacy beliefs and (2)salespersons tendency toward an external locus of control and their combined effect on turnover intention. Based on the extant literature, we acknowledge that there likely is also a direct (main) effect of coping on turnover intention. This belief will be tested later in this work. However, as shown throughout the social science literature, human behavior often is a result of a complex mosaic of underlying beliefs and motivations. As such, we propose that the combined effect of salesperson self-efficacy and external locus coupled with the choice/use of a particular type of coping strategy will provide the most salient representation of these constructs influence on salesperson turnover intention. This is discussed further below. The Influence of Self-Efficacy and Coping Style on Turnover Intention Self-efficacy beliefs influence cognitive and behavioral responses to uncertainty and stress. People with strong self-efficacious beliefs focus their attention on problem-solving solutions, whereas those doubting their abilities become preoccupied with possible failure scenarios (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). This latter type of disruptive reaction to stress diverts efforts from fulfilling task demands to concerns over personal deficiencies and impending misfortunes (Sarason, Potter, and Sarason 1986).

In light of the above, Bandura (1986) proposed that the level of an individuals self-efficacious belief is a primary determinant of the type of coping strategy he or she will adopt. According to Bandura, individuals holding strong self-efficacy beliefs are expected to pursue a more problemsolving approach to cope with stress. In contrast, when levels of self-efficacy are low, individuals are more inclined to adopt a more emotion-based approach. However, only limited empirical support for these propositions is available. For example, Parkes (1984) found that nurses with high self-efficacy reported using direct (problem-oriented) coping strategies but found no relationship between nurses self-efficacy and use of suppression (emotion-oriented) coping strategies. Staples, Hulland, and Higgins (1999) found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and a problem-focused coping orientation among remotely managed employees but did not include an examination of emotion-focused coping in their study. Similar findings are reported in studies focusing on layoff victims (Bennett et al. 1995) and freshman college students (Phinney and Haas 2003). Within the sales literature, we find only one study examining these relationships. In that study, Srivastava and Sager (1999) found a positive relationship between self-efficacy and the use of problem-focused coping strategies among field salespeople but found no relationship between self-efficacy and the use of emotion-focused coping strategies within the same group. In this work, we adopt the position taken by Bandura (1986) and Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and fully expect that salespersons self-efficacy beliefs will directly influence choice of coping strategy (problem focused versus emotion focused). As such, we do not model or offer hypotheses regarding this expected direct relationship between self-efficacy and coping. We do, however, assess this assumption when we turn our focus on testing and analyses. Instead, we choose to focus on the combined effect of these antecedents in the expectation, as previously discussed, that this will provide the most salient representation of these constructs influence on salesperson turnover intention. Given this position, it seems most likely that self-efficacious salespeople will adopt a problem-focused coping strategy in response to work stressors. It also seems likely that salesperson self-efficacy will combine with the problem-focused coping approach to further reduce turnover intentions. In contrast, in those less likely cases where self-efficacious salespeople adopt an emotion-focused coping strategy, the use of the emotionfocused coping strategy should increase turnover intentions: Hypothesis 3: Problem-focused coping will moderate the effect of self-efficacy on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will decrease. Hypothesis 4: Emotion-focused coping will moderate the effect of self-efficacy on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will increase.

Fall 2010 359

The Influence of External Locus of Control and Coping Style on Turnover Intention Cognitive or behavioral responses to stressful situations are also determined by whether or not an individual perceives he or she is capable of influencing the source of stress (Latack, Kinicki, and Prussia 1995). A problem-oriented response is likely when the individual perceives he or she is able to alter or control the cause of stress, whereas an emotion-oriented response is likely when the stress is perceived as beyond the individuals control (Folkman and Lazarus 1985). As previously stated, stress is an unavoidable characteristic of the professional selling environment. As an example, one common source of stress is failure to move negotiations forward and close deals. The salesperson may attribute these failures to external factors, including emerging technologies, formidable competition, or weakness within his or her product/service offering. Alternatively, the salesperson may believe the cause is linked to his or her lack of training or inadequate expertise. Along these lines of thought and within the sales literature, we find only one study empirically examining the relationship between locus of control and choice of coping strategy. In that study, Srivastava and Sager (1999) found that an internal locus of control was positively related to the use of problem-focused coping strategies andby default due to measurementwas negatively related to the use of emotion-focused coping strategies. However, Srivastava and Sager found no statistically significant relationship between the use of emotion-focused coping strategies and either internal or external locus of control. Outside the sales literature, extant studies provide additional, albeit limited (in terms of number of studies), empirical support for these propositions. For example, in a study examining response to natural disaster, Anderson, Hellriegel, and Slocum (1977) found businesspeople who believed they had significant control over recovery more likely to adopt a problem-focused response to their environmental stressors. In contrast, businesspeople who felt little control over their situation reported more emotion-focused responses to their stressful predicament. In a related study focusing on employees of a faltering high-tech firm, Scheck and Kinicki (2000) found individuals with an internal locus of control more likely to employ problem-focused responses to stress, whereas those with an external locus of control were more likely to adopt emotion-focused responses. Similarly, Daniels and Guppy (1994) found that the combination of an internal locus of control and a problem-focused approach successfully buffered the deleterious effects of stress on the well-being of accountants. Each of these cited non-sales-focused studies support the relationships proposed by Folkman and Lazarus (1985). However, the single sales-focused study cited above diverges somewhat in its related findings.

Consistent with these propositions, as well as the majority of the above empirical findings, we expect salespersons perceptions of locus of control to directly influence their choice of coping strategy. However, for reasons previously discussed, we do not model or offer hypotheses regarding this expected external locuschoice of coping direct relationship. We do, however, assess this assumption when we turn our focus on testing and analyses. In sum, in the majority of cases where salespeople attribute job-related stress or failures to external factors, we would expect them to adopt emotion-focused coping strategies and avoid problem-focused strategies, as they view the source of their difficulties beyond their control. Further, based on the limited extant literature previously discussed, we expect the use of emotion-focused coping in combination with an external locus of control to significantly increase turnover intention. In contrast, in those less likely cases where salespeople with an external locus of control adopt more problem-oriented approaches, we expect the use of problem-focused coping to decrease turnover intention. Thus, the following hypotheses are suggested: Hypothesis 5: Problem-focused coping will moderate the effect of external locus of control on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will decrease. Hypothesis 6: Emotion-focused coping will moderate the effect of external locus of control on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will increase. Control Variables There is little theoretical or empirical support within the sales literature suggesting that certain demographic factors will affect turnover intentions. Nevertheless, in an attempt to assess such possible confounds, three demographic variables are included in the tested structural modelrespondents age, education, and gender. Age is measured as a ratio (continuous) variable by asking respondents, Your age:____. Similarly, education is measured by asking, Your years of formal education (first grade through college or university: ____. In contrast, gender is measured as a nominal (dichotomous) variable, Your gender: female ____; male ____, where male=0 and female=1. METHOD Sample and Procedure The sampling frame included all salespeople working for an industrial specialty chemical manufacturer. Survey packets, including the questionnaire, two cover letters, and postagepaid return envelopes, were mailed to salespersons homes. The return envelopes were addressed to an anonymous university

360 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

post office box. In all, 495 usable responses were received (41 percent response rate). Respondent demographics include average age, 44.8 years; gender, 73.5 percent male; ethnicity, 77.7 percent Caucasian; and education, 43.6 percent college degree. Using the method suggested by Armstrong and Overton (1977), comparisons were made between the demographics of early (first third of returned questionnaires) versus late (last third of returned questionnaires) respondents. Comparisons also were made between the demographics of respondents versus the entire sales force. In both cases, no statistically significant differences were found with the exception of tenure with the firm. Fifty-seven percent of respondents had worked for the subject company for five or more years, which was longer than the average tenure of all sales employees. Overall, these results suggest that nonresponse bias should not significantly affect the results reported in the following sections. Measurement Validation Procedure All measures used in this study were adapted from scales found in the extant literature (see AppendixB). To validate these measures, as applied to this study, an iterative process was employed. First, the constructs of interest were analyzed via confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8.54 to verify unidimensionality. The following fit statistics indicate a good fit for the measurement model: c2=724.44, degrees of freedom (df )=367, incremental fit index (IFI)=0.97, Tucker Lewis index (TLI)=0.96, comparative fit index (CFI)=0.97, root mean square error or approximation (RMSEA)=0.04, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)=0.05 (Hu and Bentler 1999). Next, nomological validity is assessed by examining the Pearson correlation between each pair of constructs to verify that the relationships are consistent with extant theory and prior empirical work found in the literature. All correlations are significant (p<0.01), and in all cases the associations are in the expected direction, thus demonstrating nomological validity (Hair et al. 2006). Convergent validity is assessed first by examining the completely standardized factor loadings of each observed variable on its designated construct. All loadings are statistically significant (tvalues range 9.5127.13) and exceed the recommended 0.50 level (Hair et al. 2006), with only 3 of the 29 factor loadings below 0.70. Convergent validity also is assessed by calculating the composite reliabilities and the average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct using the methods suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Composite reliabilities range from 0.81 to 0.92 and AVEs range from 0.51 to 0.63, all above recommended levels (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

Last, discriminant validity is assessed using two methods. First, a series of two-factor confirmatory models are estimated. For each pair, the model is estimated first by restricting the factor intercorrelations to unity. Then the model is estimated again with the restriction removed. In each case, the chi-square difference tests (1df ) are significantly smaller in the unrestricted model demonstrating discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Bagozzi, Yi, and Phillips 1982). Second, the square of the correlation between each pair of constructs is compared to the AVE for each associated construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Among the constructs in this study, the largest squared correlation equals 0.12 and the smallest AVE equals 0.51. In sum, in each case, the individual AVE estimates are significantly greater than the individual squared correlation estimates, further demonstrating discriminant validity among the constructs. RESULTS Before discussing the results of the testing of our hypothesized model, an examination of the nonhypothesized potential direct effects of self-efficacy and external locus of control on salespersons choice of coping strategyas well as choice of coping strategy on turnover intention (as discussed earlier in this work)is warranted. Recall that the extant literature suggests that individuals high in self-efficacious beliefs are most likely to adopt problem-focused coping strategies and less likely to adopt emotion-focused coping strategies. The study data confirm these expectations. Self-efficacy is found to have a significant direct positive effect on salespersons use of problem-focused coping (0.50, p<0.001) and a significant direct negative effect on use of emotion-focused coping (0.27, p<0.001). In contrast, the extant literature suggests salespeople with tendencies toward an external locus of control are most likely to adopt emotion-focused coping strategies and less likely to adopt problem-focused coping strategies. Here, too, the study data support these expectations. External locus of control is found to have a significant direct negative effect on salespersons use of problem-focused coping (0.15, p<0.01) and a significant direct positive effect on use of emotion-focused coping (0.40, p<0.001). Last, based on the literature, we expect choice of coping strategy to have a significant direct effect on turnover intention, such that problem-focused coping should decrease turnover intention while emotion-focused coping should increase turnover intention. Again, the study data support these expectations. Problem-focused coping is found to have a significant direct negative effect on salespersons turnover intention (0.17, p<0.001) and emotion-focused coping is found to have a significant direct positive effect on turnover intention (0.31, p<0.001).

Fall 2010 361

Hypothesized Model Descriptive statistics, correlations, composite reliabilities, and AVE are presented in Table1. Figure2 provides the statistically significant standardized path coefficients and associated tvalues, along with the fit indices of the full structural model proposed through the six hypotheses (LISREL8.54). As shown in Figure2, the hypothesized model provides a good overall fit to the study data: c2=1,044.28, df=539; IFI=0.97, TLI=0.97, CFI=0.97, RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.05. Hypothesis 1 predicts that self-efficacy is negatively related to turnover intentions among salespeople. The findings support this hypothesis (0.15, p < 0.01) and suggest that as salespeople become more confident in their task-related abilities, they are less likely to think about quitting their job. Support is also found for Hypothesis2, which predicts that salespersons external locus of control is positively related to turnover intentions (0.30, p<0.001), indicating that salespeople who attribute their successes and failures to external factors are more likely to contemplate quitting their job. Hypotheses 36 focus on the combined interactive effects that personal characteristics and coping strategy have on salespersons turnover intention. Hypothesis 3 predicts that problem-focused coping will moderate the effect of selfefficacy on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will decrease. The interaction of salespersons self-efficacy and their use of problem-focused coping strategies has a significant negative effect on turnover intentions (0.18, p <0.001). To further evaluate the combined effect of problem-focused coping and self-efficacy on turnover intention, the interactive effect is plotted using the method suggested by Aiken and West (1991). As shown in Figure3, the relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention is inverse. In other words, as self-efficacy increases, turnover intention decreases. Also, under conditions of high use of problem-focused coping (as compared to low use), the inverse relationship between self-efficacy and turnover intention strengthens, decreasing turnover intention further. Also using the procedures described in Aiken and West (1991), the slopes of the simple regression lines in the case of both high and low problem-focused coping scenarios are found to be significantly different from zero (tvaluehigh=29.73; tvaluelow=16.89). Combined, these findings provide support for Hypothesis3. Thus, while findings show that self-efficacy alone negatively influences salespersons thoughts of quitting (H1), thoughts of quitting diminish further among self-efficacious salespeople who adopt a problem-focused approach to coping with workrelated stressors (H3). Hypothesis 4 proposes that emotion-focused coping will moderate the effect of self-efficacy on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intentions will increase. No support is found for this hypothesis (0.00, p<0.50). Among the

salespeople in this study, the interactive effect of salespersons self-efficacious beliefs and use of emotion-focused coping has no discernable influence on turnover intention. Hypothesis5 posits that problem-focused coping will moderate the effect of external locus of control on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intention will decrease. As with Hypothesis4, no support is found for this hypothesis (0.03, p<0.22). The unexpected findings surrounding Hypotheses4 and5 will be explored in greater detail in the Discussion section. Last, Hypothesis 6 predicts that emotion-focused coping will moderate the effect of external locus of control on salespersons turnover intention such that turnover intention will increase. The interaction between salespersons external locus of control and their use of emotion-focused coping strategies has a significant positive effect on turnover intentions (0.17, p<0.001). As before, to further evaluate the combined effect of emotion-focused coping and external locus of control on turnover intention, the interactive effect is plotted (Aiken and West 1991). The results, shown in Figure4, indicate that as salespersons external locus of control increases, turnover intention increases as well. Also, under conditions of high use of emotion-focused coping (as compared to low use), the positive relationship between external locus of control and turnover intention strengthens, increasing turnover intention further. In addition, as before, the slopes of the simple regression lines (Aiken and West 1991) in the case of both high and low emotion-focused coping scenarios are significantly different from zero (tvaluehigh=16.13; tvaluelow=7.07). Combined, these findings provide support for Hypothesis6, indicating that the positive main effect of salespersons external locus of control on turnover intention increases when salespeople adopt an emotion-focused approach to cope with work-related stressors. Control Variables Last, also shown in Figure 2, the three demographic variables had negligible influence on turnover intentions. Both age (tvalue 1.96, p<0.05) and education (tvalue 2.06, p<0.05), although marginally statistically significant, achieve path estimates of only 0.01 and 0.02, respectively. The path estimate from gender to turnover intentions is neutral 0.00, and statistically insignificant (tvalue 0.07). Combined, these findings indicate these demographic variables exert little, if any, influence on turnover intentions among the salespeople in this study. DISCUSSION Prior to any further discussion, it should be noted that there are differing views on whether or not significant main effects should be considered (interpreted) when significant interaction

362 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

External Locus of Control 1.00 0.22* 0.35* 0.36* 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.24* 0.25* 0.03 0.08 1.00 0.20* 0.01 0.01 1.96 0.66 0.90 0.61 3.76 0.57 0.88 0.54 1.98 0.61 0.92 0.58 Problem- Focused Coping EmotionFocused Coping Turnover Intentions

Self-Efficacy 1.00 0.26* 0.35* 0.24* 0.17* 0.02 0.00 4.03 0.53 0.81 0.51

Age

Education

Self-Efficacy External Locus of Control Problem-Focused Coping Emotion-Focused Coping Turnover Intentions Age Education

1.00 0.12* 0.07 1.47 0.77 0.89 0.63

1.00 0.12* 44.8 11.4 n/a n/a

1.00 15.2 1.91 n/a n/a

Mean Standard Deviation Composite Reliability Average Variance Extracted

* p < 0.01, n/a = not applicable.

Fall 2010 363

Figure 2 The Influence of Personal Characteristics and Coping Strategy on Salespersons Turnover Intention

Notes: c2 = 1,735.12, df = 942; IFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.06. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; ns = not significant; t-values are shown in parentheses.

Figure 3 Effects of Self-Efficacy and Problem-Focused Coping on Turnover Intentions

effects are found within a hypothesized model (e.g., Baron and Kenny 1986; Jaccard, Turrisi, and Wan 1990). In our view, disregarding the main effects and focusing only on the interaction effects would provide an incomplete, potentially misleading assessment of the interrelationships among this studys focal constructs. Therefore, in the following paragraphs, a discussion of both main and interaction effects is offered. However, our emphasis is on the interaction effects. We leave it up to the reader to decide whether the main effects

should be considered given the significant interaction effects found in this study. This studys examination of the direct relationship between salesperson self-efficacy and turnover intentions represents the first test of this association in the literature. Within this sample, salesperson self-efficacy negatively influences turnover intentions. This finding supports the implicit link suggested by prior works focusing on the relationship between salesperson self-efficacyjob performance (e.g., Ahearne, Mathieu, and

364 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 4 Effects of External Locus of Control and Emotion-Focused Coping on Turnover Intentions

Rapp 2005; Jaramillo and Mulki 2008; Krishnan, Netemyer, and Boles 2002) and salesperson job performanceturnover intentions (e.g., Babakus et al. 1999; Fern, Avila, and Grewal 1989; Johnston et al. 1987). However, this result should be viewed with caution as it represents the first examination of this relationship in a sales setting, and because prior findings associated with the self-efficacyturnover relationship outside the sales environment have been mixed. Similarly, additional findings reported here represent the first empirical examination of the direct relationship between salespersons locus of control orientation and turnover intentions. Among respondents in this study, external locus of control positively influences turnover intentions. Here, too, these findings should be viewed with caution until future studies can either confirm or counter the results reported here. Perhaps the more significant contribution of this work lies in the examination of the combined effect of personal characteristics and coping strategy on salespersons turnover intentions. First, as predicted, salesperson self-efficacy combines with a problem-focused coping approach to significantly reduce turnover intentions beyond the effect of self-efficacy alone. There is a certain intuitive appeal to this finding. Salespeople who are self-confident in their abilities view themselves as capable of overcoming job-related adversities through personal effort and expertise. As such, these salespeople utilize a problem-solving approach to cope with job-related stress and adversity. This often results in their achievement of desired outcomes and rewards, thus diminishing the dissatisfaction that often leads to turnover intentions. Second, opposite of prediction, no significant interactive effect is found for the combination of self-efficacy and emotion-focused coping on salespersons turnover intentions.

One possible explanation for these unexpected findings is that self-efficacious salespeople have little motivation to adopt emotion-based strategies to cope with job-related adversities. Confident in their abilities, these salespeople often view these escapist activities as a deterrent to their achievement of desired outcomes. However, in those few occurrences where self-efficacious salespeople utilize emotion-based strategies, there is little reason to believe these distractions will cause significant reductions in extant feelings of self-confidence or significantly increase turnover intentions. Instead, these escapist behaviors may provide a useful, temporary retreat from work-related stressors (Lewin and Sager 2009), providing self-efficacious salespeople the milieu to develop more effective problem-oriented plans of action. Turning to the interaction effects of external locus of control and coping strategies on turnover intentions, some related observations can be offered. First, contrary to prediction, study findings indicate that the combination of an external locus of control and the utilization of problem-focused coping has no discernable effect on salespersons turnover intentions. In contrast, as expected, the combination of an external locus of control and the utilization of emotion-focused coping has a significant positive influence on salespersons turnover intentions. Here, too, there is some intuitive, albeit tentative, appeal to these findings. First, salespeople who attribute setbacks and failures to external sources feel a certain helplessness surrounding their ability to substantially influence or change their situation (Lewin and Sager 2007). As such, these salespeople would see little benefit in applying problem-solving approaches to their situation as they view these circumstances as beyond their control (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). This could explain the

Fall 2010 365

nonsignificant combined effect of external locus of control and problem-focused coping on turnover intention. Second, and alternatively, these externally oriented salespeople would view emotion-focused strategies, either through escapism or selective withdrawal (e.g., avoiding certain customers or certain sales circumstances), as their most effective coping resource (Sutton and Kahn 1987). Thus, in lieu of actual withdrawal (quitting), externally oriented salespeople might turn to emotion-focused coping via escapist activities (e.g., golf, movie matinees, martini lunches). As previously mentioned, in some cases, these escapist activities may provide an effective, albeit short-term solution, to job-related stressors (Lewin and Sager 2009). However, persistent patterns of external attribution of failure coupled with the use of emotion-focused coping strategies likely will result in increases in turnover intentionas found in this study. It is important to note that these proffered explanations, while intuitively appealing, are tentative in nature. Perhaps future examination of these assertions can provide greater understanding of these possible influences on salesperson turnover. Managerial Implications Given the high costs of turnover in the selling profession, most organizations will benefit from strategies designed to reduce salespersons turnover intentions. To be effective, however, these strategies must address the appropriate underlying causes. Findings from this study suggest that managers should develop programs and processes aimed at strengthening salespersons sense of professional self-efficacy. Findings also suggest that salespeople should be encouraged to accept reasonable responsibility for job-related setbacks and failures, as opposed to attributing these events to factors outside salespersons control. Last, firms should do whatever possible to motivate salespeoples utilization of problem-focused strategies to cope with the adversities they face in their profession. With regard to self-efficacy, periodic training designed to improve selling techniques, product/service expertise, and interpersonal skills should be a first step toward improving self-confidence among salespeople. Additional strategies might include sales manager coaching to foster salespersons perceptions of accomplishment, as well as finding the appropriate balance between responsibilities and resources to help increase salesperson performance. Also, assigning initial sales tasks with a high likelihood of success should aid in building self-efficacy among newly recruited salespeople. Strategies to promote an internal locus of control orientation might include frequent sales managersalesperson discussions to jointly assess how each salesperson is performing, what is expected of him or her in the future and, most important,

what resources are available to help the salesperson overcome adversities and ensure success. These discussions should emphasize behavioral feedback and objectives, which are within the salespersons direct control, rather than output feedback, which the salesperson may perceive as related to events beyond his or her control (Jaworski and Kohli 1991). Results further suggest that salespeople should be encouraged to use problem-focused coping strategies in dealing with work-related adversities. To that end, pairing less-experienced salespeople with more-experienced, successful sales veterans should help in this regard. Through these mentoring relationships, the salesperson and the mentor can jointly develop problem-solving strategies to deal with difficult selling circumstances. Also, for both rookies and veterans, seminars and workshops should be offered periodically to help identify and nurture problem-focused approaches to coping with stress. In the interim, managers should recognize that for salespeople who tend to attribute setbacks and failures to external sources, the use of emotion-focused coping strategies (e.g., taking time off, playing golf ) may provide some reduction in stress-related turnover intentions, but these effects likely will be relatively short-lived. Study Limitations The sample in this study was taken from a single industrial firm, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. The advantage of using a single firm over multiple firms is (1)it minimizes possible contingencies common in multifirm studies and (2)it provides better control for contextual effects (Singh, Goolsby, and Rhoads 1994). The disadvantage is the reduction in the generalizability across multiple firms. Moreover, the data in this study represent self-reported perceptions of salesperson respondents. As with all self-report data, there is the potential for common method variance (Podsakoff and Organ 1986). To assess whether common method variance biased study results, two tests are conducted. First, a Harman single-factor test is utilized. The results of this test indicate five separate factors with no single factor accounting for more than 23 percent of the covariance among the modeled variables. Next, following Podsakoff et al. (2003, pp.895897, model 3A) a second (common method factor [CMF]) model was estimated that included a same source first-order factor added to the indictors of turnover intentions included in the original Step1 structural model (Ping 1995). As shown in Table2, there is very little difference (standardized parameter estimates, related statistical significance) between the original structural model and the revised CMF model. The results of both tests described above suggest that the relationships found in this study are not affected by common method variance.

366 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management Table 2 Common Method Factor Test for Method Bias
Description Self-Efficacy Turnover Intentions External Locus of Control Turnover Intentions Problem-Focused Coping Turnover Intentions Emotion-Focused Coping Turnover Intentions * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < .001; ns = not significant. Not Controlling for Common Method Variance 0.10* 0.26*** 0.12** 0.02ns Controlling for Common Method Variance 0.11* 0.33*** 0.15** 0.02ns

REFERENCES
Ahearne, Michael, John Mathieu, and Adam Rapp (2005), To Empower or Not to Empower Your Sales Force? An Empirical Examination of the Influence of Leadership Empowerment Behavior on Customer Satisfaction and Performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5), 945955. Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Anderson, Carl R., Don Hellriegel, and John W. Slocum (1977), Managerial Response to Environmentally Induced Stress, Academy of Management Journal, 20 (June), 260272. Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing (1988), Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (May), 411423. Armstrong, Scott J., and Terry S. Overton (1977), Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys, Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3), 396402. Babakus, Emin, David W. Cravens, Mark Johnston, and William C. Moncrief (1999), The Role of Emotional Exhaustion in Sales Force Attitude and Behavior Relationships, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27 (Winter), 5870. Bagozzi, Richard P., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips (1982), Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (September), 421458. Bandura, Albert (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (1995), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. , and Forest J. Jourden (1991), Self-Regulatory Mechanisms Governing the Impact of Social Comparison on Complex Decision Making, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (June), 941951. Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny (1986), The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Consideration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 11731182. Begley, Thomas M. (1998), Coping Strategies as Predictors of Employee Distress and Turnover After an Organizational Consolidation: A Longitudinal Study, Journal of Occu-

pational and Organizational Psychology, 71 (December), 305329. Bennett, Nathan, Christopher L. Martin, Robert J. Bies, and Joel Brockner (1995), Coping with a Layoff: A Longitudinal Study of Victims, Journal of Management, 21 (6), 10251040. Boles, James S., Mark W. Johnston, and Joseph F. Hair, Jr. (1997), Role Stress, WorkFamily Conflict and Emotional Exhaustion: Inter-Relationships and Effects on Some WorkRelated Consequences, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17, 1 (Winter), 1728. Boyd, Nancy G., Jeffrey E. Lewin, and Jeffrey K. Sager (2009), A Model of Stress and Coping and Their Influence on Individual and Organizational Outcomes, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75 (2), 197211. Brashear, Thomas G., James S. Boles, Danny N. Bellenger, and Charles M. Brooks (2003), An Empirical Test of TrustBuilding Processes and Outcomes in Sales ManagerSalesperson Relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (Spring), 189200. Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1993), Antecedents and Consequences of Salesperson Job Satisfaction: Meta-Analysis and Assessment of Causal Effects, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 6378. , William L. Cron, and John W. Slocum (1998), Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance, Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 8898. Chowdhury, Jhinuk (1993), The Motivational Impact of Sales Quotas on Effort, Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 2841. Churniss, Cary (1980), Staff Burnout: Job Stress in the Human Services, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Cortina, Jose M., Gilad Chen, and William P. Dunlap (2001), Testing Interaction Effects in LISREL: Examination and Illustration of Available Procedures, Organizational Research Methods, 4 (4), 324360. Cunningham, George B. (2006), The Relationships Among Commitment to Change, Coping with Change, and Turnover Intentions, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (1), 2945. Daniels, Kevin, and Andrew Guppy (1994), Occupational Stress, Social Support, Job Control, and Psychologi-

Fall 2010 367

cal Well-Being, Human Relations, 47 (December), 15231544. Darmon, Rene Y. (1990), Identifying Sources of Turnover Costs: A Segmental Approach, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 4656. Dixon, Andrea L., and Susan M. Schertzer (2005), Bouncing Back: How Salesperson Optimism and Self-Efficacy Influence Attributions and Behaviors Following Failure, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25, 4 (Fall), 361369. , Rosann L. Spiro, and Lukas P. Forbes (2003), Attributions and Behavioral Intentions of Inexperienced Salespersons to Failure: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (Fall), 459467. Donnelly, David P., Jeffrey J. Quirin, and David OBryan (2003), Auditor Acceptance of Dysfunctional Audit Behavior: An Exploratory Model Using Auditors Personal Characteristics, Behavioral Research in Accounting, 15 (1), 87110. Fern, Edward F., Ramon A. Avila, and Dhruv Grewal (1989), Salesforce Turnover: Those Who Left and Those Who Stayed, Industrial Marketing Management, 18 (February), 19. Folkman, Susan, and Richard S. Lazarus (1985), If It Changes It Must Be a Process: Study of Emotions and Coping During Three Stages of a College Examination, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (January), 150170. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 3950. Fugate, Mel, Angelo J. Kinicki, and Gregory E. Prussia (2008), Employee Coping with Organizational Change: An Examination of Alternative Theoretical Perspectives and Models, Personnel Psychology, 61 (Spring), 136. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Harvey, Paul, Kenneth Harris, and Mark Martinko (2008), The Mediated Influence of Hostile Attributional Style on Turnover Intentions, Journal of Business and Psychology, 22 (June), 333343. Hom, Peter. W., and Roger W. Griffeth (1991), Structural Equations Modeling Test of a Turnover Theory: CrossSectional and Longitudinal Analyses, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (June), 350366. Hrehocik, Maureen (2007), The Best Sales Force, Sales and Marketing Management, 159 (October), 2227. Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria Versus New Alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 155. Jaccard, James, Robert Turrisi, and Choi K. Wan (1990), Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jaramillo, Fernando, and Jay Prakash Mulki (2008), Sales Effort: The Intertwined Roles of the Leader, Customers,

and the Salesperson, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28, 1 (Winter), 3751. Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1991), Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeoples Performance and Satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Research 28 (3), 190201. Jex, Steve M., and David M. Gudanowski (1992), Efficacy Beliefs and Work Stress: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (5), 509517. Johnston, Mark W., A. Parasuraman, Charles M. Futrell, and William C. Black (1990), A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Selected Organizational Influences on Salespeoples Organizational Commitment During Early Employment, Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August), 333344. , P. Rajan Varadarajan, Charles M. Futrell, and Jeffrey K. Sager (1987), The Relationships Between Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Among New Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 7, 3 (November), 2938. Jolson, Marvin A., and Lucette B. Comer (1997), The Use of Instrumental and Expressive Personality Traits as Indicators of a Salespersons Behavior, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 17, 1 (Winter), 2943. Jones, Eli, Lawrence Chonko, Deva Rangarajan, and James Roberts (2007), The Role of Overload on Job Attitudes, Turnover Intentions, and Salesperson Performance, Journal of Business Research, 60 (July), 663671. Kelly, Patrick J., and Richard T. Hise (1980), Role Conflict, Role Clarity, Job Tension and Job Satisfaction in the Brand Manager Position, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8 (2), 120137. Kemery, Edward R., Arthur G. Bedeian, Kevin W. Mossholder, and John Touliatos (1985), Outcomes of Role Stress: A Multisample Constructive Replication, Academy of Management Journal, 28 (2), 363375. Kirchmeyer, Catherine, and Aaron Cohen (1999), Different Strategies for Managing the Work/Non-Work Interface: A Test for Unique Pathways to Work Outcomes, Work& Stress, 13 (1), 5973. Krishnan, Balaji C., Richard G. Netemeyer, and James S. Boles (2002), Self-Efficacy, Competitiveness, and Effort as Antecedents to Salesperson Performance, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 4 (Fall), 285295. Latack, Janina C. (1986), Coping with Stress: Measure and Future Directions for Scale Development, Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (August), 377385. , and Stephen J. Havlovic (1992), Coping with Stress: A Conceptual Evaluation Framework for Coping Measures, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (September), 479508. , Angelo J. Kinicki, and Gregory E. Prussia (1995), An Integrative Process Model of Coping with Job Loss, Academy of Management Review, 20 (April), 311342. Lazarus, Richard S., and Susan Folkman (1984), Stress, Appraisal and Coping, New York: Behavioral Science Books.

368 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Lewin, Jeffrey E., and Jeffrey K. Sager (2007), A Process Model of Burnout Among Salespeople: Some New Thoughts, Journal of Business Research, 60 (December), 12161224. , and (2008), Salesperson Burnout: A Test of The Coping-Mediational Model of Social Support, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 28, 3 (Summer), 233246. , and (2009), An Investigation of the Influence of Coping Resources in Salespersons Emotional Exhaustion, Industrial Marketing Management, 38 (7), 798805. Mallin, Michael L., and Michael Mayo (2006), Why Did I Lose? A Conservation of Resources View of Salesperson Failure Attributions, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 26, 4 (Fall), 345357. Mayes, Bronston T., and Daniel C. Ganster (1988), Exit and Voice: A Test of Hypotheses Based on Fight/Flight Responses to Job Stress, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9 (July), 199216. Nonis, Sarath A., and Jeffrey K. Sager (2003), Coping Strategy Profiles Used By Salespeople: Their Relationships with Personal Characteristics and Work Outcomes, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 2 (Spring), 139150. Parkes, Katharine (1984), Locus of Control, Cognitive Appraisal and Coping in Stressful Episodes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (March), 655688. Parsons, Charles K., David M. Herold, and Marya L. Leatherwood (1985), Turnover During Initial Employment: A Longitudinal Study of the Role of Causal Attributions, Journal of Applied Psychology, 70 (May), 337341. Phinney, Jean S., and Kumiko Haas (2003), The Process of Coping Among Ethnic Minority First-Generation College Freshman: A Narrative Approach, Journal of Social Psychology, 143 (December), 707726. Ping, Robert A. (1995), A Parsimonious Estimating Technique for Interaction and Quadratic Latent Variables, Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (August), 336347. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Dennis W. Organ (1986), Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects, Journal of Management, 12 (4), 531544. , Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), Comment Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879903. Porter, Stephen S., Frederic B. Kraft, and Cindy Claycomb (2003), The Practice of Wellness Lifestyle in a Selling Environment: A Conceptual Exploration, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 23, 3 (Summer), 191204. Rhoads, Gary K., Jagdip Singh, and Phillips W. Goodell (1994), The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14, 3 (Summer), 124. Roberts, James A., Richard S. Lapidus, and Lawrence B. Chonko (1997), Salespeople and Stress: The Moderating Role of

Locus of Control on Work Stressors and Felt Stress, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 5 (Summer), 93108. Sager, Jeffrey K., David Strutton, and D.A. Johnson (2006), Core Self-Evaluations and Salespeople, Psychology& Marketing, 23 (February), 95113. Sarason, Irwin G., Earl H. Potter, and Barbara R. Sarason (1986), Recording and Recall of Personal Events: Effects on Cognitions and Behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (August), 347356. Schaubroeck, John, Simon S. Lam, and Jia Line Xie (2000), Collective Efficacy Versus Self-Efficacy in Coping Responses to Stressors and Control: A Cross-Cultural Study, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (August), 512525. Scheck, Christine L., and Angelo J. Kinicki (2000), Identifying the Antecedents of Coping with an Organizational Acquisition: A Structural Assessment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (September), 627648. Schulman, Peter (1999), Applying Learning Optimism to Increase Sales Productivity, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 1 (Winter), 3137. Singh, Jagdip, Jerry R. Goolsby, and Gary K. Rhoads (1994), Behavioral and Psychological Consequences of Boundary Spanning Burnout for Customer Service Representatives, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (November): 558569. Spector, Paul E. (1988), Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61 (4), 335340. Srivastava, Rajesh, and Jeffrey K. Sager (1999), Influence of Personal Characteristics on Salespeoples Coping Style, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 2 (Spring), 4757. Staples, D. Sandy, John S. Hulland, and Christopher A. Higgins (1999), A Self-Efficacy Theory Explanation for the Management of Remote Workers in Virtual Organizations, Organization Science, 10 (NovemberDecember), 758776. Strutton, David, and James R. Lumpkin (1993), The Relationship Between Optimism and Coping Style of Salespeople, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 13, 2 (Spring), 7182. , and (1994), Problem- and Emotion-Focused Coping Dimensions and Sales Presentation Effectiveness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Summer), 2837. Sutton, Robert I., and Robert L. Kahn (1987), Prediction, Understanding and Control as Antidotes to Organizational Stress, in Handbook of Organizational Behavior, Jay William Lorsch, ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 272285. Teas, R. Kenneth, and James C. McElroy (1986), Casual Attributions and Expectancy Estimates: A Framework for Understanding the Dynamics of Salesforce Motivation, Journal of Marketing, 50 (January), 7586. Troutman, Coleen S., Kimberly Gladden Burke, and Jesse D. Beeler (2000), The Effects of Self-Efficacy, Assertiveness, Stress, and Gender on Intention to Turnover in Public Accounting, Journal of Applied Business Research, 16 (Summer), 6374.

Fall 2010 369

Van Clief, Mark S. (1991), In Search of Competence: Structured Behavior Interviews, Business Horizons, 34 (MarchApril), 5154. Zellars, Kelly L., Yongmei Lie, Virginia Bratton, Robert Brymer, and Pamela L. Perrewe (2004), An Examination of the

Dysfunctional Consequences of Organizational Justice and Escapist Coping, Journal of Managerial Issues, 16 (Winter), 528544.

Appendix A Summary of Pings (1995) Approach to Estimating Interaction Effects in Structural Equation Modeling Ping (1995) suggests that interaction effects can be estimated in structural equation modeling by introducing a single indicator latent product construct using a two-step process. In Step 1 of the process, only the additive model is estimated in structural equation modeling (SEM). For example, TI = SE + ELC + PFC + EFC, where TI = turnover intentions, SE = self-efficacy, ELC = external locus of control, PFC = problem-focused coping, and EFC= emotion-focused coping. From the results of the Step 1 additive model, the values used in the Step 2 multiplicative model are obtained for the interaction term and its associated error variance. In the case of the starting value for the interaction term, the value is calculated by separately summing the individual item factor loadings obtained in Step 1 of, for example, self-efficacy and problem-focused coping and then multiplying these additive sums together (see Ping 1995, p.338, formula4). In the case of the error variance of the interaction term, the calculation is a bit more complex combining the individual item factor loadings and their associated measurement errors (see Ping 1995, p.338, formula5). The result of this calculation is used to set the error variance of the interaction term in the Step 2 multiplicative model. Having achieved the values described above, one or more interaction terms are created in the normal fashion of multiplicatively combining two constructs (e.g., self-efficacy problem-focused coping). Then the Step 2 multiplicative model is estimated. For example, TI = SE + PFC + SE * PFC. A step-by-step procedure, including both the LISREL matrix and SIMPLIS coding, is provided by Cortina, Chen, and Dunlap (2001, pp.345349). Appendix B Final Measurement Items Used in Analysis Self-Efficacy (Cronbachs a = 0.73) (adapted from Chowdhury 1993)a I am good at selling. I know the right thing to do in selling situations. I am good at finding out what customers want. It is easy for me to get customers to see my point of view. It is difficult for me to put pressure on a customer.* (R) I find it difficult to convince a customer that has a different viewpoint than mine.* (R) My temperament is not well suited for selling.* (R)

370 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

External Locus of Control (Cronbachs a = 0.86) (adapted from Spector 1988) Getting the job you want is mostly a matter of luck. Making money is primarily a matter of good fortune. In order to get a really good job, you need to have family members or friends in high places. Sales success is usually a matter of good fortune. When it comes to landing a really good job, who you know is more important than what you know. To make a lot of money, you have to know the right people. It takes a lot of luck to be an outstanding employee on most jobs. The main difference between people who make a lot of money and people who make a little money is luck. Problem-Focused Coping (Cronbachs a = 0.72) (adapted from Latack 1986) I come up with several alternative solutions to the problem. I make a plan and follow it. I give my best effort to do what is necessary to solve the problem. I work on changing policies that caused the situation. I decide what I think should be done and explain this to the people who are affected. I try to work more efficiently. I meet with my manager and discuss the situation that caused the stress.* I take things one step at a time.* I talk with people who are involved in the situation that caused the stress.* Emotion-Focused Coping (Cronbachs a = 0.67) (adapted from Latack 1986) I watch TV. I hope a miracle will happen. I avoid being with people in general. I refuse to believe it has happened. I have fantasies about how things will work out. I eat snacks. I avoid being in the situation if I can.* I say to myself, this is not real.* Turnover Intentions (Cronbachs a = 0.90) (adapted from Hom and Griffeth 1991) During the next six months, I intend to search for another full-time job. I intend to leave this division during the next six months. I regularly think of quitting my job. Thoughts of quitting seldom cross my mind. (R) I fit in at this company.* (R)
All items measured on a five-point scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. (R) = Reverse coded. *Deleted during measurement validation procedures
a

Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.