Wat maakt iemand tot een goede service employee/verkoper? Churchill et al. (1985): Meta-analyse 116 artikelen belangrijkste determinanten v succes: (1) persoonlijke kenmerken (uiterlijk; sociale achtergrond; ervaring en opleiding; life style) (2) vaardigheden (communiceren, overtuigen; interesse kweken; samenwerken) (3) rol variabelen (weten wat er van je verwacht wordt; ethiek en instelling) (4) persoonlijkheid (capaciteiten; zelfvertrouwen; aimabiliteit) (5) motivatie (inzet; extra inspanning) (6) organisatie en omgeving
Kenmerken van deze studies Gaan (bijna) allemaal over b-to-b Criterium voor succes is altijd vanuit het perspectief van de ondernemer (verkoopomzet, aantal orders) Vragen: - wat bepaalt succes in de retail? - worden de criteria voor succes gedeeld door consumenten (en verkopers zelf)? Pruyn & Smidts (2000) 18 consumentenwinkels (auto’s, meubelen, electronica, parfumerie, dranken, boeken) Verkoopleider: “beste” en “slechtste”
vervolgens …. Vragenlijst: rapportcijfers aan “beste” en “slechtste” beoordeling van “beste” en “slechtste” op 30 kenmerken (7-puntsschalen) - boezemt vertrouwen in - toont respect voor de klant - empathie, etc. hoe belangrijk zijn deze 30 kenmerken (7-puntsschalen) Daarna: “beste” en “slechtste” beoordelen zichzelf op deze kenmerken in iedere winkel: één klant van “beste” en één klant van “slechtste” beoordelen hun verkoper op dezelfde 30 kenmerken Dus: (N=90) respo’s: 18 sales managers, 18 “beste”, 18 “slechtste”, 36 klanten
Conclusies 30 kenmerken objectiviteit (ethos)
expertise (logos) likeability (pathos)
3 saillante dimensies - betrouwbaar - eerlijk - inlevingsvermogen - kennis - ervaring - adviseert - vriendelijk - beleefd - net voorkomen
Aristoteles (Pisteis): drie dimensies in de retorica oprechtheid, argumentatie, emotioneel appeal
Results Three perspectives on what is important Sales Managers Salespersons Customers 1 Likeability 2.70 Expertise 2.62 Expertise 2.24 2 Expertise 2.47 Likeability 2.50 Likeability 1.98 3 Objectivity 2.43 Objectivity2.36 Objectivity 1.83 (Scores range from -3 to +3)
Results Three perspectives on what is important Sales Managers Salespersons Customers 1 Likeability 2.70 Expertise 2.62 Expertise 2.24 2 Expertise 2.47 Likeability 2.50 Likeability 1.98 3 Objectivity 2.43 Objectivity2.36 Objectivity 1.83 On the attribute level: Sales managers: Customers:
friendliness, neatness product knowledge
Results Three perspectives on what is important Sales Managers Salespersons Customers 1 Likeability 2.70 Expertise 2.62 Expertise 2.24 2 Expertise 2.47 Likeability 2.50 Likeability 1.98 3 Objectivity 2.43 Objectivity2.36 Objectivity 1.83 MANOVA, multivariate F = 5.52, p < .001 No differences between “best” and “worst” salespeople
Results Three perspectives on sales performance Respondent Managers Sales Rep* Best Worst Expertise 2.52 1.92 Objectivity 2.18 1.71 Likeability 2.52 2.17
Salespersons Best Worst 2.46 2.19 2.13 1.98 2.46 2.36
Customers Best Worst 1.98 1.49 1.70 1.38 2.13 1.65
* “Best” and “worst” salespersons as appointed by their sales managers
Sales managers perceive clear differences between “best” and “worst” salespersons, especially on expertise
Results Three perspectives on sales performance Respondent Managers Sales Rep* Best Worst Expertise 2.52 1.92 Objectivity 2.18 1.71 Likeability 2.52 2.17
Salespersons Best Worst 2.46 2.19 2.13 1.98 2.46 2.36
Customers Best Worst 1.98 1.49 1.70 1.38 2.13 1.65
* “Best” and “worst” salespersons as appointed by their sales managers
Customers give less positive ratings but agree with sales managers in perceived differences between “best” and “worst” salespersons
Results Three perspectives on sales performance Respondent Managers Sales Rep* Best Worst Expertise 2.52 1.92 Objectivity 2.18 1.71 Likeability 2.52 2.17
Salespersons Best Worst 2.46 2.19 2.13 1.98 2.46 2.36
Customers Best Worst 1.98 1.49 1.70 1.38 2.13 1.65
* “Best” and “worst” salespersons as appointed by their sales managers
Self-evaluation of “best” salespersons is almost identical to the evaluation by their sales managers
Results Three perspectives on sales performance Respondent Managers Sales Rep* Best Worst Expertise 2.52 1.92 Objectivity 2.18 1.71 Likeability 2.52 2.17
Salespersons Best Worst 2.46 2.19 2.13 1.98 2.46 2.36
Customers Best Worst 1.98 1.49 1.70 1.38 2.13 1.65
* “Best” and “worst” salespersons as appointed by their sales managers
“Worst” salespersons perceive themselves as worse on all dimensions than “best” salespersons, but tend to overrate themselves as compared to their managers self-serving bias !
Results Only “worst” salespersons attach greater value to dimensions on which they think they are strong expertise likeability No differences between durables and non-durables or price level
Customer Loyalty (type 1) Reichheld (1996): step 1: finding the right customer ( steady cash flows) step 2: reinvest cash-flow surplus ( earn continued loyalty) - hire and retain superior employees - service equipment
Customer Loyalty (type 1) Reichheld (1996): step 1: finding the right customer ( steady cash flows) step 2: reinvest cash-flow surplus ( earn continued loyalty) - hire and retain superior employees - service equipment - the service environment
Customer Loyalty (type 1) Lovelock (2000): a customer’s willingness to continue patronising a firm over a long term, purchasing and using its goods and services on a repeated and preferably exclusive basis, and voluntarily recommending the firm […] to friends and associates. Customer loyalty (1)
Reputation /Patronage
Wat bleek…..?
Satisfaction
Customer loyalty (1)
Customer loyalty (2)
Reputation /Patronage
Customer Loyalty (type 2) Loyalty to the ‘contract’ - How do we motivate the patient to pursue treatment? - How do we get the patient to follow cleaning instructions? - How do we set the patient’s mind as a prosumer?
The “exacerbation loop”
Satisfaction
Customer loyalty (1)
Customer loyalty (2)
Reputation/ Patronage
The “exacerbation loop”
Satisfaction
Customer loyalty (1)
Reputation/ Patronage
Customer loyalty (2)
Quality of Treatment
The “exacerbation loop”
Satisfaction
Customer loyalty (1)
Reputation/ Patronage
Customer loyalty (2)
Quality of Treatment
