1. Friday April 24th 2015

2. Managing Team-Level Intangibles for Performance The Roles of Social Capital and Transactive Memory in Goal-Setting, Learning, and Service Quality Dan Bachrach Ryan Mullins Adam Rapp

3. Me: Knock, Knock? Audience….. (“Who’s there….?) Me: An Owl says…. Audience: (“An Owl says who…..?”)

4. You’re Right! Jessica Eliana Caleb Jake Sam Lilah

5. Increasing complexity… Markets constraints require firms to offer progressively complex offerings (solutions – Tuli, et al, 2007) Difficult (impossible?) to map the parameters of sales approaches as solution complexity increases To be effective, sales personnel must be deployed with a self- corrective, customer centric, learning orientation This flexible, adaptive approach allows representatives to meet customers’ uncertain (Sujan et al., 1994) – even contrary needs (Park & Holloway, 2003) needs

6. Customized Solutions Complex Product Offerings Timely and Accurate Service Provision Increasingly Large Knowledge Base Manager Challenge Formalized Selling Approaches Incentives Investment Options

7. Customized Solutions Complex Product Offerings Timely and Accurate Service Provision Increasingly Large Knowledge Base Manager Challenge Social Capital New Investment Option

8. Social Capital “… the sum of actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from a network of relationships.” (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) 1)Provides access to timely, relevant information 2)Increases social influence and social awareness 3)Contributes to emergence of Collective Reciprocity Norms Investments in social capital – managerial behavioral norms and interpersonal connections - incremental, cumulative, day-to-day investments in social capital (Cohen & Prusak, 2001)

9. Org. Investments in Social Capital Timely and Relevant Information Team Goal Monitoring Social Awareness Learning Effort Collective Reciprocity Norms Commitment to Service Quality Indicators of Self-Corrective, Customer Focus

10. Outcomes of Social Capital Self-CorrectiveCustomer-Centric Learning Orientation

11. Team Goal Monitoring Reflects teams’ on-going assessment of what needs to be accomplished to achieve goals.

12. Outcomes of Social Capital Individual Model

13. Individual Performance Drivers Learning Effort Acquiring and adapting knowledge, behavior, skills Commitment to Service Quality Collective, customer-focused approach

14. Outcomes of Social Capital

15. Contextual Moderation…? Contemporary sales environment – and solutions specifically - require both broader and deeper customer/product knowledge Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) - shared cognitive directory of team members’ expertise, facilitates cooperative information encoding, storage, and division of expertise identifiably associated with particular members (Austin, 2003; Lewis & Herndon, 2011 Sales professionals embedded in teams operating a TMS have broader and deeper knowledge – TMS as a boundary condition

16. Full Hypothesized Model + +

17. Study Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: OISC - are positively associated with team goal monitoring. Hypothesis 2: OISC - are positively associated with individual learning effort. Hypothesis 3: OISC - are positively associated with individual commitment to service quality. Hypothesis 4: Team goal monitoring is positively associated with individual learning effort. Hypothesis 5: Team goal monitoring is positively associated with individual commitment to service quality. Hypothesis 6: Individual learning effort is positively associated with commitment to service quality. Hypothesis 7: Individual learning effort is positively associated with performance. Hypothesis 8: Salesperson commitment to service quality is positively associated with performance. Hypothesis 9: TMS moderates the relationship between commitment to service quality and performance, such that the positive relationship between commitment to service quality and performance is stronger when TMS is higher. Hypothesis 10: TMS moderates the relationship between learning effort and performance, such that the positive relationship between learning effort and performance is stronger when TMS is higher.

18. Analytical Strategy Path Analysis (Preacher et al., 2010) with a Multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) framework (Wang et al., 2013) Partition the variance of any construct in the model Avoids confounding in estimation of individual- and team-level effects Simultaneous estimation of individual-level models and team-level effects – allowing for cross-level moderation First) test of main effects - estimated an MSEM model (Model 1) with individual-level random intercepts and slopes that did not include TMS as the cross-level moderator. Second) Test cross-level moderation - estimated a second model (Model 2) with TMS as a team-level predictor that explained the individual-level random slopes between: 1) learning effort and performance and 2) commitment to service quality and performance

19. Data Collection Qualitative Interviews Sales Executives (3) Sales Managers (3) Salespeople (7) Field-Based Surveys 277 salespeople 54 manager-defined teams ~ 5.13 salespeople / team

20. Results

21. Interaction for Learning Effort x TMS

22. Interaction for Service Quality x TMS

23. Discussion Practical Implications OISC – team goal monitoring, Individual learning effort, commitment to service quality – these investments can be monitored/evaluated as a dimension of work performance (Hitt & Ireland, 2002; Maurer & Ebers, 2006) Theoretical Implications What kinds of social capital can be driven by OISC – structural? relational? cognitive? (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) Role of TMS for individual performance Limitations Sample drawn from a single organization Sales sample – quantifiable outcomes – what about R&D or operations? Performance – quantitative index – what about subjective performance outcomes (trust, social confidence, competence beliefs)? Lagged design – but not “change” data – no definitive causal inferences Conclusion Complex solutions require flexible, adaptable deployment – OISC may help to drive this process

24. Thank You

25. Measures Survey Data Employee Level Org. Investment in Social Capital* (7 items) Transactive Memory Systems*(15 items) Learning Effort(3 items) Commitment to Service Quality(3 items) Sales Experience (Years)(1 item) Team Level (Manager response) Goal Monitoring(5 items) Archival Data Lagged Individual Performance (% to Quota)

26. Measures

27. Model 1 Main Effects Model 2 Interaction Model CoefficientSECoefficientSE Individual Level Effects Random slopes β 1 : Learning Effort  Performance Intercept.08**.03.08***.02 Transactive Memory Systems.07**.03 β 2 : Commitment to Service Quality  Performance Intercept.09**.04.07*.04 Transactive Memory Systems.10**.05 Fixed slopes β 3 : Learning Effort  Commitment to Service Quality.23***.07.23***.07 Team Level Effects β 4 : Org. Investment in Social Capital  Commitment to Service Quality.24**.11.24**.11 β 5 : Org. Investment in Social Capital  Learning Effort.24***.08.24***.06 β 6 : Org. Investment in Social Capital  Team Goal Monitoring.51***.17.51***.17 β 7 : Team Goal Monitoring  Commitment to Service Quality.22**.11.23**.11 β 8 : Team Goal Monitoring  Learning Effort ‒.24***.06 ‒.24***.08 β 9: Transactive Memory Systems  Performance.13**.05 Δdf 3 -2Log-likelihood3686.4 3672.2 -2LL Change 14.2*** AIC3744.5 3734.2 BIC3846.0 3842.8 Structural Model Results