Sales Education and Training 2.0

The State of Sales Education

The three articles in this section focus on the current state of the sales education literature, sales curricula, and sales center leadership. In the first article, “A Critical Review of the Literature for Sales Educators 2.0,” Cummins, Nielson, Peltier, and Deeter-Schmelz review the sales education literature published between 2005 and 2019. In doing so, the authors extend the work of Cummins et al. (2013) by expanding the number of journals included in the review (including the Journal of Marketing Education, Marketing Education Review, the Journal for the Advancement of Marketing Education, Journal of Education for Business, and the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management), verifying the increase in sales education articles over this period. Interestingly, 69% of the sales education articles reviewed were published after Cummins et al. (2013), with the three largest categories of articles comprising experiential learning, career development, and assessment. In addition to providing information on topics and exercises that may be implemented in the classroom, this critical paper provides direction on trends in sales education and future research opportunities, including the potential impact of COVID-19.

In the article “Sales Education in the United States: Perspectives on Curriculum and Teaching Practices,” Spiller, Kim, and Aitken investigate the sales education landscape in the United States through a review of recent sales education articles, websites of University Sales Center Alliance member schools, surveys from Sales Education Foundation and University Sales Center Alliance professors, and course syllabi. The findings are diverse and across an array of areas. Although the best mix of classes to offer in a comprehensive sales curriculum is school dependent, those receiving the highest responses were Introductory Sales (97%), Advanced Sales (90.1%), Sales Analytics (65.4%), Sales Management (61.7%), and Negotiation (61.7%). While identified as a critical need area, sales analytics is an under-taught, though increasing important topic, especially with the increase in technology-driven selling. Their findings from a survey of professors suggest opportunities for universities to add a formal structure to their sales curriculum, with 28.6% having a sales major, 42.9% a sales minor, 22.4% both a sales major and minor, 26.5% a sales certificate, and 24.5% a sales concentration.

Despite the fact that university sales centers are becoming more prevalent, little is known about the directors of such programs. In our last article in this section, “The Path to Sales Leadership: Key Differences between Academic and Practitioner Leaders,” Chaker, Dixon, and Hill employ job demands-resource theory and a work-based identity perspective to explore the differences between PhD and non-PhD sales center directors, and particularly with regard to differences associated with the activities and job demands performed by directors. The results of a web-based survey of 52 directors of sales centers belonging to the University Sales Center Alliance (31 PhD and 21 non-PhD) and subsequent in-depth interviews with 34 directors, revealed that PhD directors spent significantly more time on research activities, whereas non-PhD directors spend more time coaching and developing students. PhD directors also devote more time to managing staff, administration activities, and fundraising than their non-PhD counterparts. Interestingly, PhD directors tend to be more focused on big-picture issues such as vision, initiatives, and the profession, whereas non-PhD directors tended to emphasize personal impact for students. The findings of this study have interesting implications for universities seeking directors for their sales centers, as the degree status of the director may affect the program’s strategic direction.

Sales Pedagogy and Competitions

The most extensive section in this issue features articles focused on sales competitions and pedagogy. The first two articles examine intracollegiate and intercollegiate sales competitions, respectively. In “Everyone’s a Winner: The Initiation and Effectiveness of an Intracollegiate Sales Competition,” Magnotta, Peev, and Steffes recommend intracollegiate sales competitions as an excellent sales career preparation tool. The authors conducted in-depth interviews with sales faculty who organize intracollegiate sales competitions, as well as two quantitative studies based on pre- and post-competition data collected from student competitors. The results reveal recommendations and best practices for initiating and implementing an intracollegiate sales competition and show that students experience a more positive learning experience from sales competitions than from in-class role-plays. They find that competitions enhance students’ perceptions of the sales profession, general sales knowledge, and intention to pursue a sales career. These findings provide support that extracurricular intracollegiate sales competitions benefit students tremendously by effectively preparing them for sales careers.

Inks, Barber, Loe, and Forbes continue the focus on university sales competitions, with an exciting twist grounded in current events. Their article “Running with Your Hair on Fire: Lessons Learned from Transitioning a National University Sales Competition from Face-to-Face to Virtual in 16 Days” provides an in-depth account of the steps taken to move the granddaddy of all intercollegiate sales competitions, the National Collegiate Sales Competition (NCSC), from its planned face-to-face format to a virtual form in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Drawing from experiential learning theory, the authors review the complicated steps taken to move the competition to a virtual system, including the challenges faced and the actions taken to overcome those challenges. Data collected from competition attendees provide insights regarding areas for improvement. The case study results provide insights for any university seeking to conduct a virtual competition, as well as for researchers seeking to explore virtual sales calls. Given that this article describes a learning event that was impacted directly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to mention JME’s upcoming Special Issue on Tales of the Unexpected: Teaching Turmoil and Triumphs in Times of Crisis, with co-editors Mitchell, Rippé, and Kemp (submission deadline of June 1, 2021).

Whereas the previous two articles focus on implementing sales competitions, the third article answers recent calls for pedagogical guidance on sales and technology by collecting data from a university sales competition. In their paper, “Do Technology-based Sales Support Materials Make a Difference in Personal Selling? The Impact of Technology Usage by Gender in the Personal Selling Process,” Lee and Heinze examine the use of front-line technology-based sales support materials in place of traditional hard-copy support materials. Data were collected from 71 competitors participating in a national sales competition. The results of the randomized field experiment revealed that the use of technology-based sales support materials was positively related to the sales presentation and objection handling steps in the selling process, but was not recommended for other stages of the process. The authors found no evidence of gender differences and suggested this lack of significance may be due to generational changes in female attitudes toward technology. These findings provide finely tuned insights on when technology-based support materials provide the most significant impact, information that is useful for both faculty and sales trainers alike.

The last article in this section adopts a unique perspective, analyzing the sales process as a teaching style. In “Selling-to-Teach: A Didactical Look at the Natural Integration between Teaching and Selling,” Rippé, Yurova, and Weisfeld-Spolter address whether the use of selling activities to teach students improves perceived and actual learning. Using communication theory as a foundation for the study, the authors reinforce previous researchers’ assertions that the teaching-learning process is analogous to the selling-buying process. Employing a two-study approach, the authors first collect data from 252 students to conduct an exploratory investigation of students’ perceptions of a selling-to-teach approach (Study 1). Data were subsequently collected over two semesters from 616 marketing students representing two major universities (Study 2). Taken together, the results of these two studies suggest a selling-to-teach pedagogy increases the effects of instructor likability/concern, student interest, and learning performance on perceived learning, and that the selling-to-teach approach can be used across the university, not just to teach sales and marketing classes.

Perceptions and Intentions to Pursue a Sales Career

The last section of this special issue emphasizes perceptions and intentions regarding sales education and sales careers. In the first paper in this section, “Sales Student Preconceptions and a Novel Approach to Sales Curriculum Mapping: Insights, Implications, and Application for Sales Educators,” Hammond presents the results of a year-long study conducted in three stages. First, data were collected from 113 students enrolled in introductory and advanced sales classes to investigate the source of students’ preconceptions regarding salespeople. Second, a convenience sample of senior business leaders participating in a DBA program was used to generate a list of current skills needed by salespeople. Third, the skills generated in Step 2 were used to create a curriculum map of learning outcomes and course topics. The study resulted in a teaching protocol known as TRIP (Teach, Reinforce, Introduce, and Practice). This process identified the sources of students’ preconceptions (mostly from transactional sales experiences) as well as the skills required by students completing the courses and resulted in a curriculum protocol with vast application possibilities.

Our last paper in this special issue, “Sales Education for Engineering Students: What Drives Interest and Choice?” emphasizes a relevant major that benefits from sales education, namely, engineering. Drawing from social cognitive theory, Scott and Beuk investigate the drivers of engineering students’ interest in sales certification, including personality, ability, and social factors, by studying data from 204 engineering students and 179 business students. Among the many interesting findings was the need for different models depending on major. For example, trait competitiveness was a strong driver of interest for both engineering and business students, but explained choice for business students only. The authors report several thought-provoking findings that illuminate engineering and business students’ preference for sales classes.

Working with this group of authors to develop this special issue has been exciting and rewarding. This issue is full of actionable ideas for both teaching and research, and we look forward to your feedback on how this has influenced your thinking. We appreciate your support of the Journal of Marketing Education!