1. CONTEXTUAL UTILIZATION AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTANCY OF SALES- CRM TECHNOLOGY IN AN INTERNATIONAL SALES ORGANIZATION David S. Baker University of Louisiana Email: dbaker@louisiana.edu 11/06/2014

2. OverviewOverview This paper examines performance expectancy related to the Contextual Utilization of CRM Technology in an international field sales organization. It tests multi-dimensional contextual technology utilization in a model that includes four distinct factors of utilization including accessing, analysing, internal communication, and external communication. These contextual factors are measured in terms of frequency, emphasis, and confidence and posited to relate to the dependent variable of Individual Performance Expectancy. Individual Performance Expectancy is then posited as a significant antecedent to Collective/Group related Performance Expectancy.

3. Theory/Literature Overview Primary areas of theory/literature linked to the conceptual model of this study: 1.Sales-CRM/Sales Force Automation (multiple references…) 2.Sales Technology Utilization (Hunter and Perrault 2006, 2007) 3.Performance Expectancy and culturally influenced technology adoption (Bagozzi 2008). 4.Normative Aspects of Technology Utilization (Bagozzi 2008). 5.Individual and Group orientation in organizational technology utilization. (Bagozzi 2008)

4. Utilization as an Antecedent to Performance Expectancy This study posits that in an organizational setting where utilization of the system is required, contextual utilization of the system is positively related to the formation of attitudes of individual performance expectancy, which will in turn help to form attitudes of group/organizational performance expectancy. Collective/Group Oriented Performance Expectancy Individual Performance Expectancy Accessing Analyzing Internal Communication External Communication

5. Key Definitions Individual Performance Expectancy – the degree to which a salesperson believes that using SFA technology will help him or her achieve individual benefits or gains in personal status, productivity, or compensation. (adapted from Venkatesh et al. 2003) Collective Performance Expectancy – the degree to which a salesperson believes that using SFA technology will help the organization increase its performance or productivity. (adapted from Venkatesh et al. 2003)

6. HypothesesHypotheses H1 Contextual Accessing Utilization of technology will positively relate to Contextual Analyzing Utilization of technology. H2 Contextual Accessing Utilization of technology will positively relate to Contextual Internal Communication Utilization of technology. H3 Contextual Accessing Utilization of technology will positively relate to Contextual External Communication Utilization of technology. H4 Contextual Analysing, Internal Communication, and External Communication will all positively relate to Individual Performance Expectancy. H5 Individual Performance Expectancy will positively relate to Collective Performance Expectancy.

7. MeasurementsMeasurements Sample Contextual Utilization Measurement:

8. MeasurementsMeasurements Performance Expectancy Measurements:

9. Sample Descriptive Characteristics

10. Data Analysis and Model Testing Documented procedures for data normality, screening, reliability testing, and partial least squares model testing. (Chin 1998a; Chin 2010; Fornel and Larcker 1981; Hair et al. 2010; Nunnally 1978; Sundaram et al. 2007) Partial Least Squares Estimation (PLS) approach of Structural Equation Modeling was chosen over co-variance based SEM for three primary reasons: 1.PLS-SEM has an ability to work effectively with smaller sample sizes (Chin 2010; Chin and Newsted 1999). 2.It is a preferred method for prediction and theory development (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstdt 2011) 3.The PLS method of SEM is appropriate for studies that are partially exploratory in nature.

11. The Research Model and Results

12. Discussion and Managerial Implications 1.Individual goal development linked to context in CRM Utilization. 1.Contextual utilization based objectives linked to MBO or Balanced Scorecard goals. 2.Training and CRM Utilization. A.Individual benefits leading to Collective results 3.SFA Vendor implications. 1.Dashboard visualization related to individual and group utilization metrics.

13. Limitations and Future Research Limitations – Limited access at many host company sales units prevented data collection from comparative countries with higher national levels of collectivist traits and limits generalizability. – Cross-sectional nature of this study limits generalizability. Future Research – Enhancement of the model with larger sample sizes incorporating additional moderating or antecedent contextual utilization variables

14. Thank you for your attention. Questions?