NORTH- HOLLAND

Manufacturer Influence
versu Man ufa urer ct

Sdesperson Influence
over the Industrial
Distributor
James E. Zemanek, Jr.

This research attempts to distinguish empirically between domain of power than does the manufacturer in a channel con-
the potential influence of a manufacturer versus the manufac- taining an industrial distributor. 0 Elsevier Science Inc., 1997
turer’s salesperson over a distributor’s business in eight differ-
ent areas of potential influence: price, order quantity, product
line, advertising and sales promotion, customer service, inven- INTRODUCTION
tory, customer credit, and display. Data were collected from
We are shifting from a transaction orientation to a rela-
412 industrial distributors in a marketing channel. The author
tionship management orientation in industrial marketing.
conducted a factor analysis to find out if the salesperson does
Therefore, it becomes even more important to understand
have power over policy areas apart from that of the manufac-
the nature and quality of all channel interactions. The cur-
turer and found support for the belief that, compared with the
rent emphasis in industrial marketing channel research fo-
manufacturer, the manufacturer’s salesperson has a different
cuses on the relationship between organizations. This is
unfortunate, because the interpersonal relationship between
Address correspondence to James E. Zemanek, Jr., Department of Market-
an individual buyer and a particular salesperson is where
ing, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353. the real focus of the exchange relationship may be found

Industrial Marketing Management 26,59-66 (1997)

0 Elsevier Science Inc., 1997 0019.8501/97/$17.00
655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII SOOl9-8501(96)00109-5
 Each member has power in an organization.
[l]. Furthermore, we can gain rich insight into personal
selling strategy by examining the nature of the customer-
salesperson relationship [2]. Therefore, it seems that the
analysis of this interpersonal relationship [3,4] is a more
appropriate way to examine channel relations than the al-
ternate study of the customer-institution relationship.
A large body of research furthers the understanding of
power relationships between organizations in industrial
distribution channels [5-121. However, Gaski [6] notes
that we have not fully met many research goals because of
an incomplete understanding of power sources. Most re-
search efforts have focused on manufacturers, distribu-
tors, and lately, customers as the primary sources of power
in a distribution channel. To date, the previous channels
and sales literature have failed to distinguish between
manufacturer power and manufacturer’s .suZesperson power.
This research posits that the manufacturer’s salespeople
are much more than “boundary personnel.” Salespeople
represent their companies to customers and to society.
Impressions made by these salespeople on their custom-
ers form the customer’s opinions about the firm and its
products. Therefore, the salesperson employed by the
manufacturer could have power over areas that are sepa-
rate from that of the manufacturer.
This study contributes to the existing industrial mar-
keting literature by treating the manufacturer’s salesper-
son as a potential source of power over certain distributor
policy areas in the industrial channel of distribution. This
notion is opposed to the previous industrial channels re-
search that has not examined the role of the manufacturer’s
salesperson. The hypothesis generated by this research and
its foundation are discussed in the next section.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT
AND HYPOTHESIS
Emerson [15] viewed power as the potential to influ-
ence. He proposed that the basis for one party’s posses-
JAMES E. ZEMANEK, JR., is Assistant Professor of Marketing
at East Carolina University.
60
sion of power lies in the other party’s dependence on the
relationship or its need to maintain the relationship to
achieve desired goals. Most of the theory regarding
power relationships is set in terms of an interpersonal re-
lationship. We must assume that an individual organiza-
tion, like an individual, has a distinct personality and a
set of needs and wants. Therefore, we can conceptualize
that a company interacting with another in a channel’s
context is analogous to an interpersonal relationship [5].
Channel-based power studies usually adopt the perspec-
tive that power should be considered a multidimensional
concept limited in its application, rather than pervasive.
In a given channel of distribution, one member may be
perceived as having power over certain policy areas but
not others.
Within an organization, each member of that organiza-
tion has power over certain aspects of the organization’s
mode of operation because of that individual’s resources
and position. Therefore, power, rather than being the
property of the organization, is issue specific and shared
among members of that organization, including the sales-
person. Given this perspective, saying that channel mem-
ber “A” has power over channel member “B” is virtually
meaningless [ 161. The statement could be made mean-
ingful by identifying certain areas of B’s behavior that A
can influence [8]. Clearly if power is issue specific rather
than pervasive, then the sources of power over various
policy areas should be considered issue specific as well [8].
Distinct Salesperson Power
Without a base of influence the salesperson cannot ef-
fectively influence customers [ 131. McCall [ 141 reviewed
the use of influence bases in an organizational setting and
concluded that “the relevance of a given power base, the
appropriateness of various tactics, and the likely impacts
of power use are intimately linked with each other and
the situation at hand” (p. 205). Research in this area is
important for three primary reasons: (1) anticipating and
negotiating for role and reward adjustments are essential
aspects of adaptive channel systems, (2) channel condi-
tions may restrict the type of communication between
members, and (3) channel member attitudes, morale, and
 Salespeople are potential sources of power.
performance are partially decided by the type and amount of
influence applied in the exchange relationship [lo].
If a salesperson mediates the customer’s achievement
of a goal and the goal is important to the customer, the
higher the relative power of the salesperson [ 131. There-
fore, we could measure the relative power in an industrial
sales interaction in terms of each party’s goals related to
the purchase decision and the degree to which each party
can affect the other party’s ability to meet its goals [ 171.
If the goals are important to the customer, then the sales-
person will have more power [ 13, 171. In fact, the sales-
person may have more power than the manufacturer over
certain policy areas in selected industrial channels of dis-
tribution. The salesperson as a potential source of power
is one characteristic of the customer’s relationship with
the salesperson that stands out as not receiving adequate
attention in marketing research, although it has received
considerable attention in social psychology [ 181 and or-
ganizational behavior [ 141.
This research posits that the manufacturer’s salesper-
son can be more persuasive than the manufacturer in
changing the behavior of the distributor in certain policy
areas, where the manufacturer means the general entity
apart from the salesperson. Considering this innovative
approach, clearly the study of the manufacturer’s sales-
person as a subcomponent of power in the industrial
channel ought to be of interest to the marketing practitioner;
yet this area has received little attention. Furthermore,
since the manufacturer’s salesperson has probably al-
ways been a source of channel power over certain policy
areas to one degree or another, efforts should be directed
toward describing and explaining the phenomenon. The
hypothesis focused directly on this objective:
HI: The manufacturer’s salesperson has power over pol-
icy areas unique and separate from that of the manu-
facturer in the industrial distribution channel.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data Collection Procedure
Data were collected from general line distributors. The
sample frame was the Joint Membership Directory of the
American Supply & Machinery Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion, Inc. and the Industrial Distribution Association, and
1,032 were sampled. Personalized letters and question-
naires were mailed to the purchasing agent, or the owner
or president if no purchasing agent was listed, using
Dillman’s [19] “total design method.” The sample in-
cluded distributors in Canada, the United States, and
Mexico.
The mail survey resulted in a total response of 412 re-
turns out of 1,032 mail-outs, giving a response rate of
39.8%. Nonresponse bias was evaluated by comparing
nonrespondents with respondents based on geographic
location and annual dollar sales of the distributorship.
Geographic observations, were pooled into five regions:
east, midwest, south, southwest, and west. Because some
states had very few respondents, the pooling made it pos-
sible to calculate a valid test statistic. Annual dollar sales
were divided into eight groups ranging from under
$2,000,000 to over $50,000,000.
The analysis of nonresponse bias across geographic re-
gions did not produce a significant chi-square statistic.
Therefore, there are no differences between the groups
(x2 = 5.619, P = .140; P S .025 needed for significance).
When respondents were compared with nonrespondents,
according to annual sales volume and ignoring geo-
graphic region, a significant chi-square statistic was
found (x2 = 23.720, P = .0004; P d .025 needed for sig-
nificance), suggesting that there is a difference between
the two groups. This difference was isolated to distribu-
tors who average less than $2,000,000 a year in annual
sales. These distributors are usually one-manager opera-
tions, seldom exceeding 10 total employees. These dis-
tributors have the least amount of time to complete a sur-
vey and the lowest interest in the research conducted.
Therefore, this result was not deemed significant enough
to warrant adjustments in the sample.
Operational Measures
The next section briefly describes the questionnaire
items used to measure and test the constructs composing
the hypothesis. The section begins with a discussion of
the method used to help the respondents distinguish be-
61
 Proper training for salespeople
tween manufacturer power and salesperson power, and it
ends with a description of the two variables used in the
study.
Several statements were included in the questionnaire
to ensure that the respondent distinguished between
salesperson power and manufacturer power. The first in-
struction on the questionnaire requested that the respon-
dent “think of a salesperson from any of your suppliers
that you deal with on a regular basis.” The questionnaire
then requested that the respondent write the actual name
of the salesperson in a space provided. A series of ques-
tions followed that asked for responses concerning that
particular salesperson. To obtain views on the actual
manufacturer, not the salesperson for the manufacturer,
part four of the questionnaire requested that the respon-
dent “stop thinking about the salesperson referred to
above and concentrate on the supplier he/she works for
and indicate the degree to which you cooperate with this
supplier as a company.”
MANUFACTURER POWER. Gaski and Nevin [20] devel-
oped the items representing the various facets of manu-
facturer power, where power is “the supplier’s ability to
get the dealer to do what he would not have done other-
wise” (p. 135). Two lo-item, 5-point, Like&like scales
were developed from Gaski and Nevin’s scale to measure
manufacturer power and manufacturer’s salesperson
power. The scales measure the potential influence of a
manufacturer/manufacturer’s salesperson over a distribu-
tor’s business in eight different areas of potential influ-
ence: price, order quantity, product line, advertising and
sales promotion, customer service, inventory, customer
credit, and display. These scales measure the perception
of the manufacturer/manufacturer’s salesperson power as
reported by distributors.
Gaski and Nevin’s [20] study used face, content, and
discriminant validity measures. They achieved content
validity by taking an internal inventory of items from the
channel’s literature [21, 221 and modified it by ideas
from distributors. Gaski and Nevin [20] also asserted dis-
criminant validity, as the correlations between constructs
measured in the study were never as high as the Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient (0.865) for power. The scale items used
62
is essential.
in this study to measure the power of the manufacturer
are as follows:
1. If the manufacturer wanted you to raise the prices
you charge for their products, what is the maximum
amount you would raise prices?
2. If the manufacturer wanted you to lower the prices
you charge for their products, what is the maximum
amount you would lower prices?
3. If the manufacturer wanted you to increase the guan-
tity of their products you order, what is the maximum
amount you would increase order quantity?
4. If the manufacturer wanted you to decrease the
quantity of their products you order, what is the max-
imum amount you would decrease order quantity?
5. If the manufacturer wanted you to change the com-
position of your product line, what is the maximum
amount you would change your product line?
6. If the manufacturer wanted you to change the type of
advertising and sales promotion you do for their
products, what is the maximum amount you would
change your advertising and sales promotion?
7. If the manufacturer wanted you to change your cus-
tomer service policy, what is the maximum amount
you would change your customer service?
8. If the manufacturer wanted you to change your in-
ventory procedures, what is the maximum amount
you would change your inventory procedures?
9. If the manufacturer wanted you to change your cus-
tomer credit policy, what is the maximum amount
you would change your customer credit?
10. If the manufacturer wanted you to change the way
you display their products, what is the maximum
amount you would change your display of their
products?
SALESPERSONPOWER. The scale items used in this
study to measure the power of the manufacturer’s sales-
person are as follows:
1. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to raise the
prices you charge for their products, what is the
maximum amount you would raise prices?
2. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to lower the
 Power is issue specific.
prices you charge for their products, what is the
maximum amount you would lower prices?
3. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to increase
the quantity of their products you order, what is the
maximum amount you would increase order quan-
tity?
4. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to decrease
the quantity of their products you order, what is the
maximum amount you would decrease order quan-
tity?
5. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change the
composition of your product line, what is the maxi-
mum amount you would change your product line?
6. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change the
type of advertising and sales promotion you do for
their products, what is the maximum amount you
would change your advertising and sales promotion?
7. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change
your customer service policy, what is the maximum
amount you would change your customer service?
8. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change
your inventory procedures, what is the maximum
amount you would change your inventory proce-
dures?
9. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change
your customer credit policy, what is the maximum
amount you would change your customer credit?
10. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change the
way you display their products, what is the maximum
amount you would change your display of their
products?
The means and standard deviations for the two variables
used in this study are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Scale Mean SD
Manufacturer power 9.12 2.80
Salesperson power 13.07 3.53
Scale Purification
The first criterion used in deciding whether to delete
an item was the item’s corrected correlation between the
score on the item and the sum of scores on all of the other
items making up the scale. These corrected item-to-total
correlations were plotted in descending order for each di-
mension. I plotted items with very low correlations in de-
scending order for salesperson power and manufacturer
power. Items with very low correlations and/or those
whose correlations produced a sharp drop in the plotted
pattern were discarded. This procedure resulted in deletion
of questions 1 and 2 from the manufacturer power scale
and questions 6, 9, and 10 from the salesperson power
scale, producing a total power scale consisting of 16 items.
The second step in the purification process was to de-
tect and delete outliers. If outliers exist in the data, they
can distort parameter estimation, invalidate test statistics,
and lead to incorrect statistical inference. A multivariate,
multiple outlier technique developed by Hadi [23] was
used for this research. The model subjected to the analy-
sis used manufacturer power as the dependent variable
and salesperson power as the independent variable. This
procedure resulted in the deletion of 15 observations.
The third step in the purification process consisted of
examining the dimensionality of the 16-item scale by
factor analyzing the difference scores in the 16 items. I
used a principal axis factoring procedure, [24] and the
analysis was constrained a priori to two factors. The two-
factor solution was rotated orthogonally, but no clear fac-
tor pattern emerged. Many items had high loadings on
both factors, implying that the factors may not be inde-
pendent of one another. Therefore, the two-factor solu-
tion was subjected to oblique rotation using the promax
rotation procedure in STATA to allow for intercorrela-
tions among the dimensions and to ease interpretation.
The oblique rotation provided a factor-loading matrix
that was much easier to interpret. However, questions 3
and 4 from the manufacturer power score had high load-
ings on both factors and were deleted from the scale.
Then another factor analysis and oblique rotation were
conducted, which resulted in the deletion of questions 6
and 9 from the manufacturer power measure and ques-
63
tions 7 and 8 from the salesperson power measure. This tomer service policy, what is the maximum amount
procedure resulted in a 9-item total power measure. you would change your customer service?
8. If the manufacturer wanted you to change your in-
ventory procedures, what is the maximum amount
Evaluation of Reliability
you would change your inventory procedures?
The reliability of the variables was evaluated by calcu- 10. If the manufacturer wanted you to change the way
lating coefficient alpha. A coefficient alpha of 0.73 was you display their products, what is the maximum
found for the five items making up the measure of sales- amount you would change your display of their
person power and 0.70 for four items making up the mea- products?
sure of manufacturer power. These results suggest the
When the five questions making up the first factor were
presence of reasonable levels of internal consistency
factor analyzed separately, there was a clear loading on
among the items designed to represent the salesperson
only one factor. The same result was found for the four
power and manufacturer power.
questions making up the second factor.
The factor analysis and varimax rotation conducted
Hypothesis Testing clearly show that different questionnaire items make up
the domain of manufacturer’s sales-person power and
To test the hypothesis that the manufacturer’s sales-
different questionnaire items make up the domain of
person has power over policy areas that are unique and
manufacturer’s salesperson power. However, there is one
separate from that of the manufacturer power in an indus-
topic overlap that needs to be more closely examined.
trial distribution channel, the nine items making up the
Question five-dealing with the degree to which the dis-
total power scale were factor analyzed. When I rotated
tributor would change the composition of its product line
the two-factor solution orthogonally, using the varimax
if requested by the manufacturer or the salesperson-is
procedure in STATA, a clear factor pattern emerged (see
present in both scales. Therefore, the manufacturer and
Table 2). Salesperson power questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
the salesperson draw power from the composition of the
make the first factor and manufacturer power questions
product line.
6,7, 8, and 10 make the second factor.
FACTOR1:
1. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to raise the
IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGERS
prices you charge for their products, what is the The first implication of this study pertains to the power
maximum amount you would raise prices? structure in the industrial channel of distribution. Each
2. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to lower the member of an organization has power over certain as-
prices you charge for their products, what is the pects of the organization’s operating procedure because
maximum amount you would lower prices? of the individual’s skills and position. Therefore, power is
3. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to increase shared between members of the organization, such as the
the quantity of their products you order, what is the
maximum amount you would increase order quan-
tity? TABLE 2
4. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to decrease Factor Loadings (Varimax Rotation)
the quantity of their products you order, what is the
Rotated Factor Loadings
maximum amount you would decrease order quan-
tity? Variable 1 2
5. If the salesperson from (x) wanted you to change the
SPOW I -0.60258 0.07330
composition of your product line, what is the muxi- SPOW2 -0.57837 0.09090
mum amount you would change your product line? SPOW3 -0.59109 0.13487
FACTOR2: SPOW4 -0.52897 0.05959
SPOWS -0.59658 0.23194
6. If the manufacturer wanted you to change the com- MPOWS -0.3778 I 0.52183
position of your product line, what is the maximum MPOW7 -0.2101 I 0.62191
amount you would change your product line? MPOWR -0.26029 0.63468
MPOWlO -0.20724 0.50805
7. If the manufacturer wanted you to change your cus-

64
salesperson. Channel members with more power can use
their power to obtain more successful transactions and
greater total profitability [25]. This research benefits
management, because it examined the degree that the
manufacturer’s salesperson is responsible for the sales
interaction between the manufacturer and the industrial
distributor. Typically the salesperson is the only contact
between the manufacturer and the industrial distributor;
to this customer the salesperson is the manufacturer. Be-
cause the salesperson plays a more important role in the
sales interaction than was once assumed, the manufac-
turer should be convinced to put more resources into the
proper training of their salespeople to ensure customer
satisfaction.
The sales manager can also develop selling strategies
from the results of this research that can suggest to the
salesperson ways to be more effective when dealing with
certain policy areas. The salesperson has more influence
than the employing manufacturer over the distributor’s
business practices for the manufacturer’s products in five
different policy areas: (1) getting the distributor to raise
the prices the distributor charges for their products, (2)
getting the distributor to lower the prices they charge for
their products, (3) getting the distributor to increase the
quantity of their products they order, (4) getting the dis-
tributor to decrease the quantity of their products they order,
and (5) getting the distributor to change the composition
of their product line. The salesperson for the manufac-
turer will be more effective in influencing the distributor
to make changes in these policy areas than the manufac-
turer’s management.
The manufacturer has more influence than their sales-
people over the distributor’s business practices in four dif-
ferent policy areas: (1) getting the distributors to change
the composition of their product line, (2) getting the dis-
tributors to change their customer service policy, (3) get-
ting the distributors to change their inventory procedures,
and (4) getting the distributors to change the way they
display their products. If the manufacturer feels that the
distributor needs to make changes in these policy areas,
the influence attempt will be more effective coming from
management.
SUMMARY
To determine if the salesperson does have power sepa-
rate from that of the manufacturer, a factor analysis with
a varimax rotation was performed. The analysis suggests
that the salesperson for the manufacturer has power over
the policy areas of requesting the industrial distributors
to raise prices, lower prices, increase the order quantity,
decrease the order quantity, and change the composition
of their product line. The manufacturer’s domain of
power consists of the ability to get the industrial distributors
to change the composition of their product line, change
their customer service policy, change their inventory pro-
cedures, and change the way the distributor displays the
manufacturer’s products. Therefore, the results generated
from this research support the notion that the manufac-
turer’s salesperson in an industrial distribution channel is
not a faceless entity; distributors attribute more power
over certain policy areas to manufacturer’s salespeople.
REFERENCES
1. Young, Louise C., and Wilkinson, Ian F., The Role of Trust and Coopera-
tion in Marketing Channels: A Preliminary Study. European Journal of
Marketing 23, 109-122 (1989).
2. Bonoma, T. V., and Johnston, W. J., The Social Psychology of Industrial
Buying and Selling. Indusfrial Markering Management 17, 213-224
(1978).
3. Anderson, J. C., and Narus, J. A., A Model of the Distributor’s Perspective
of Distributor-Manufacturer Working Relationships. Journal ofMarketing
48,62-74 (1984).
4. Anderson, J. C., and Narus, J. A., A Model of Distributor Firm and Manu-
facturer Firm Working Partnership. Journal of Marketing 54, 42-58
(1990).
5. Beier, F. J., and Stem, L. W., Power in the Channel of Distribution, in Dis-
tribution Channels: Behavioral Dimensions, Louis W. Stem, ed., Hough-
ton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1969.
6. Gaski, John F., The Theory of Power and Conflict in Channels of Distribu-
tion. Journal of Marketing 48,9-29 (1984).
7. Lusch, Robert F., and Brown, James R., A Modified Model of Power in
the Marketing Channel. Journal of Marketing Research 19, 312-323
(1982).
8. Lusch, Robert F., and Ross, Robert H., The Nature of Power in a Market-
ing Channel. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13, 39-56
(1985).
9. Sibley, Stanley D., and Michie, Donald A., An Exploratory Investigation
of Cooperation in a Franchise Channel. Journal of Retailing 58, 2345
(1982).
10. Frazier, Gary, On the Measurement of Interfirm Power in Channels of Dis-
tribution. Journal of Marketing Research 20,158-166 (1983).
11. Frazier, Gary, and Summers, John, Interfirm Influence Strategies and
Their Application within Distribution Channels. Journal of Marketing 48,
43-55 (1984).
12. Frazier, Gary, and Rody, Raymond C., The Use of Influence Strategies in
Interfirm Relationships in Industrial Product Channels. Journal of Market-
ing 55,52-69 (1991).
13. Weitz, Barton A., Effectiveness in Sales Interactions: A Contingency
Framework. Journal of Marketing 45,85-101 (1981).
14. McCall, Morgan W., Jr., Power, Authority, and Influence, in Organiza-
tional Behavior, S. Kerr, ed., Grid Publishing Company. Columbus, OH,
1979.
15. Emerson, R. M., Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological
Review 27,31-41 (1962).
65
16. Kaplan, John C., The Effects of Power Use. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 13,134-147 (1964).
17. Noordewier, Thomas, John, George, and Nevin, John R., Performance
Outcomes of Purchasing Arrangements in Industrial Buyer-Vendor Rela-
tionships. Journal ofMarketing54,80-93 (1990).
18. Raven, Bertram H., and Kruglanski, Arie, Conflict and Power, in The
Srructure of Conflict,Paul Swingle, ed., Academic Press, Inc., New York,
1970.
19. Dillman, D. A., Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.
20. Gaski, John F., and Nevin, John, The Differential Effects of Exercised and
Unexercised Power Sources in a Marketing Channel. Journal of Market-
ing Research 22,13@-142 (1985).
21. Hunt, Shelby D., and Nevin, John R., Power in a Channel of Distribution:
Sources and Consequences. Journal of Marketing Research 11, 186193
(1974).
22. Lusch, Robert F., Franchise Satisfaction: Causes and Consequences. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution 7, 128-140 (1977).
23. Hadi, Ah S., Identifying Multiple Outliers in Multivariate Data. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society 54,761-771 (1992).
24. Harman, Harry H., Modem Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. University of Chi-
cago Press, Chicago, IL, 1967.
25. McAlister, Leigh, Bazerman, Max H., and Fader, Peter, Power and Goal
Setting in Channel Negotiations. Journal of Marketing Research 23, 22%
236 (1986).