Indian Journal of Industrial Relations: Economics & Social Dev.

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Salespeople Performance Evaluation Criteria in India


Affiliations
1 Assistant Professor in Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


An empirical study is conducted among 90 sales and marketing managers in India to understand the degree of importance given to the top four criteria (and eight sub-criteria) from the list used for the performance evaluation of salespeople in India. The top four criteria are 1. Knowledge (Product Knowledge and Competition Knowledge) 2. Personal Characteristics (Attitude and Initiatives) 3. Skills (Selling skills and Communication skills) and 4. Self-management (Judgement/Decisionmaking ability and planning ability). These four criteria are not equally important for salespeople performance evaluation. Personal Characteristics and Skills received higher mean weightage than Knowledge and Self-Management. Personal characteristics & soft skills depend upon an individual’s own capabilities and efforts, thus receiving higher mean weightage.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Anderson, P.F. & Chambers, T. (1985), “A Reward/ Measurement Model of Organizational Buying Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 49(2): 7-23.

  • Avila, Ramon Á., Fern, E.F. & Mann, O. K. (1988), “Unraveling Criteria for Assessing the Performance of Salespeople: A Causal Analysis”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8(1): 45-54.

  • Baron, J. & Hershey, J.C. (1988), “Outcome Bias in Decision Making”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (4): 569-579.

  • Capaldo, G. & Zollo, G. (2001), “Applying Fuzzy Logic to Personnel Assessment: A Case Study”, Omega; the International Journal of Management Science, 29(6): 585– 597.

  • Churchill, G.A. Jr., Ford, N.M., Hartley, S.W. & Walker, O.C. Jr. (1985), “The Determinants of Salesperson Performance: A Meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing Research, 12(2): 103-118.

  • Dagdeviren, M. (2010), “A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-making Model for Personnel Selection in Manufacturing Systems”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 21, 451– 460.

  • Darmon, Rene, Y. and Martin, Xavier, C. (2011), “A New Conceptual Framework of Sales Force Control Systems”, Journal of Selling & Sales Management, 31(3): 297–310.

  • Dhurkari, R. K. (2019), “MCGL: A New Reference Dependent MCDM Method”, International Journal of Operational Research, 36(4): 477–495.

  • Dubinsky, A.J., Skinner, S. J. & Whittler, T. E. (1989), “Evaluating Sales Personnel: An Attribution Theory Perspective”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 9(2): 9-21.

  • Dursun, M. & Karsak, E. E. (2010), “A Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Personnel Selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 37(6): 4324–4330.

  • Golec, A. & Kahya, E. (2007) , “A Fuzzy Model for Competency-based Employee Evaluation and Selection”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 52(1): 143-61.

  • Güngöra, Z., Serhadliog¢lub, G. & Kesen, S. E. (2009), “A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Personnel Selection Problem”, Applied Soft Computing, 9(2): 641–46.

  • Hawkins, Scott A. & Hastie Reid (1990), “Hindsight Biased Judgments of Past Events After the Outcomes Are Known”, Psychological Bulletin, 107(3): 311-27.

  • Jackson, D. W., Jr., Schlacter, J. L. & Wolfe, W.G. (1995), “Examining the Bases Utilized for Evaluating Salespeople’s Performance”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 15(4): 57-65.

  • Jackson, Donald W., Keith, Janet E. & Schlacter, John L. (1983), “Evaluation of Sales Performance: A Study of Cur-rent Practices”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 3(2): 43-51.

  • Jaworski, Bernard J. & Kohli, Ajay K. (1991), “Supervisory Feedback: Alternative Types and Their Impact on Salespeople’s Performance and Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2) :190-201.

  • Jobber, David, Hooley, Graham J. & Shipley David (1993), “Organizational Size and Salesforce and Sales Force Evaluation Practice”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13(2): 37–48.

  • Kabak, M., Burmaog¢lu, S. & Kazançog¢lu, Y. (2012), “A Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Approach for Professional Selection”, Expert Systems with Applications, 39(3): 3516–25.

  • Karsak, E.E. (2001), “Personnel Selecting Using a Fuzzy MCDM Approach Based on Ideal and Anti-ideal Solutions”, in: M. Ko¨ksalan, S. Zionts (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millenium, Springer, Berlin.

  • Keršuliene, V. & Turskis, Z. (2011), “Integrated Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-making Model for Architect Selection”, Technologica l a n d Ec o no mi c Dev el o p me nt o f Economy, 17(4): 645–66.

  • Liang, G. S. & Wang, M. J. J. (1994), “Personnel Selection Using Fuzzy MCDM Algorithm”, European Journal of Operational Research, 78(1): 22–33.

  • Mad ha n i , P an ka j M. ( 2 0 1 5 ), “Man agi n g Salesforce Performance: Behavior Versus Outcome Measures”, Compensation & Benefits Review, 47(2): 81–90.

  • Manoharan, T.R., Muralidharan, C. & Deshmukh, S.G. (2011), “An Integrated Fuzzy Multiattribute Decision-making Model for Employees’ Performance Appraisal”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(3): 722-45.

  • Marshall, Greg W., John C. Mowen and Keith J.Fabes (1992), “The Impact of Territory Difficulty and Self Versus Other Ratings on Managerial Evaluations of Sales Personnel”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12(4): 35-47.

  • McKay, Sandra, Joseph F. Hair, Jr., Mark W.Johnston & Daniel L. Sherrell (1991), “An Exploratory Investigation of Reward and Corrective Responses to Salesperson Performance: An Attributional Approach”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11(2): 39-48.

  • Miller, G.M. & Feinzing, S.L. (1993), “Fuzzy Sets and Personnel Selection: Discussion and Application”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(2): 163–69.

  • Morris, Michael H., Duane L. Davis, Jeffrey W.Allen, Ramon A. Avila, & Joseph Chapman (1991), “Assessing the Relationships among Performance Measures, Managerial Practices, and Satisfaction When Evaluating the Salesforce: A Replication and Extension”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 11 (Summer): 25-35.

  • Patton, W.E. III & King, R.H. (1985), “The Use of Human Judgment Models in Evaluating Sales Force Performance”, The Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 5(1): 1-14.

  • Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S. & d’Amico, M. (2001), “Characteristics of Performance Appraisals and Their Impact on Sales Force Satisfaction”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(2): 127–46.

  • Pettijohn, S.L., Parker, S.R., Pettijohn, C.E. & Kent, J.L. (2001), “Performance Appraisals: Usage, Criteria and Observations”, Journal of Management Development, 20(9): 754-71.

  • Rosenbloom, B. & Anderson, R.E. (1984), “The Sales Manager: Tomorrow’s Super Marketer”, Business Horizons, 27(2): 50-56.

  • Taylor, Albert, J., Pettijohn, Linda, S. & Pettijohn, Charles, E. (1999), “Salespersons and Sales Managers: A Descriptive Early Study of Topics and Perceptions of Retail Sales Performance Appraisals”, Human Resource Development Quarterly,10(3): 271-91.

  • Torfi, F., Farahani, R.Z. & Rezapour, S. (2010), “Fuzzy AHP to Determine The Relative Weights of Evaluation Criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to Rank The Alternatives”, Applied Soft Computing, 10(2):520–28.


Abstract Views: 132

PDF Views: 0




  • Salespeople Performance Evaluation Criteria in India

Abstract Views: 132  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Ram Kumar Dhurkari
Assistant Professor in Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, India

Abstract


An empirical study is conducted among 90 sales and marketing managers in India to understand the degree of importance given to the top four criteria (and eight sub-criteria) from the list used for the performance evaluation of salespeople in India. The top four criteria are 1. Knowledge (Product Knowledge and Competition Knowledge) 2. Personal Characteristics (Attitude and Initiatives) 3. Skills (Selling skills and Communication skills) and 4. Self-management (Judgement/Decisionmaking ability and planning ability). These four criteria are not equally important for salespeople performance evaluation. Personal Characteristics and Skills received higher mean weightage than Knowledge and Self-Management. Personal characteristics & soft skills depend upon an individual’s own capabilities and efforts, thus receiving higher mean weightage.

References