467 458 Management of a Sales Force, 12th Edition 5 Evaluating Sales Performance this managerial activity, we outline a complete program for evaluating sales performance. The last section of the chapter is a case example of how one sales manager interpreted the performance data he assembled. Nature and Importance of Performance Evaluation Appraising a salesperson's performance is a part of the managerial function of evaluation. It is part of a marketing audit. Management compares the results of a person's efforts with the goals set for that person. The purpose is to determine what happened in the past and to use this information to improve performance in the future either by taking corrective actions or by rewarding good performance. The evaluation system also is one of the means by which managers direct the activities of their salespeople. Concept of Evaluation and Development Evaluation has an added dimension when viewed from the perspective of evaluation and development of individual salespeople. Within this wider context, management engages in a counseling activity rather than in a cold statistical analysis. Certainly management wants to measure past performance against standards to identify strengths and weaknesses in the firm's marketing system, particularly as a basis for planning. But this activity is optimized only if it also is brought to the personal level of the salesperson. It should serve as a basis for the person's self-development and as a basis for a sound company program to guide and develop the personnel. Concept of Evaluation and Direction If salespeople are aware of the criteria by which they will be evaluated, they will try to do things to improve their performance on these criteria. For example, if one of the goals of the company's strategy is to improve customer satisfaction, then this goal should be included in the evaluation process. This will serve to direct the efforts of the reps toward this goal. If the reps are aware that customer satisfaction will be an important dimension of their evaluation, then they will try to improve their customers' satisfaction. Importance of Performance Evaluation A good performance review can be a major aid in other sales force management tasks. Promotions and pay increases can be based on objective performance data rather than on favoritism, subjective observations, or opinions. Weaknesses in field-selling efforts, once identified, may be forestalled by incorporating corrective measures in training programs. On the other hand, management can identify the sales techniques of the outstanding performers with an eye toward having other salespeople adopt them. Performance evaluations also may uncover the need for improvements in the compensation 467 CHAPTER 16 Evaluating a Salesperson's Performance 459 467 plan. For instance, the existing plan may focus too much effort on low-margin items or too little attention on nonselling (missionary) activities. Performance an.

1. 467
458 Management of a Sales Force, 12th Edition
5 Evaluating Sales Performance
this managerial activity, we outline a complete program for
evaluating sales performance. The last section of the chapter is
a case example of how one sales manager interpreted the
performance data he assembled.
Nature and Importance of Performance Evaluation
Appraising a salesperson's performance is a part of the
managerial function of evaluation. It is part of a marketing
audit. Management compares the results of a person's efforts
with the goals set for that person. The purpose is to determine
what happened in the past and to use this information to
improve performance in the future either by taking corrective
actions or by rewarding good performance. The evaluation
system also is one of the means by which managers direct the
activities of their salespeople.
Concept of Evaluation and Development
Evaluation has an added dimension when viewed from the
perspective of evaluation and development of individual
salespeople. Within this wider context, management engages in
a counseling activity rather than in a cold statistical analysis.
Certainly management wants to measure past performance
against standards to identify strengths and weaknesses in the
firm's marketing system, particularly as a basis for planning.
But this activity is optimized only if it also is brought to the

2. personal level of the salesperson. It should serve as a basis for
the person's self-development and as a basis for a sound
company program to guide and develop the personnel.
Concept of Evaluation and Direction
If salespeople are aware of the criteria by which they will be
evaluated, they will try to do things to improve their
performance on these criteria. For example, if one of the goals
of the company's strategy is to improve customer satisfaction,
then this goal should be included in the evaluation process. This
will serve to direct the efforts of the reps toward this goal. If
the reps are aware that customer satisfaction will be an
important dimension of their evaluation, then they will try to
improve their customers' satisfaction.
Importance of Performance Evaluation
A good performance review can be a major aid in other sales
force management tasks. Promotions and pay increases can be
based on objective performance data rather than on favoritism,
subjective observations, or opinions. Weaknesses in field-
selling efforts, once identified, may be forestalled by
incorporating corrective measures in training programs. On the
other hand, management can identify the sales techniques of the
outstanding performers with an eye toward having other
salespeople adopt them. Performance evaluations also may
uncover the need for improvements in the compensation
467
CHAPTER 16 Evaluating a Salesperson's Performance
459
467

3. plan. For instance, the existing plan may focus too much effort
on low-margin items or too little attention on nonselling
(missionary) activities.
Performance analysis especially helps in sales supervision. It is
difficult to effectively supervise someone without knowing what
the person is doing correctly or incorrectly, and why. If a rep's
sales volume is unsatisfactory, for instance, a performance
review will show it. Moreover, the evaluation may help identify
the cause—whether the rep has a low daily call rate, does not
work enough days per month, calls on the wrong prospects, has
trouble with the sales presentation, and so on.
An effective procedure for appraising the work of an individual
also can help morale. Any person who knows what he or she is
expected to do and has some benchmarks for measuring
accomplishments feels more secure. A performance evaluation
should ensure that reps who deserve favorable recognition
receive it, and those who deserve criticism are handled
appropriately. The salesperson with the highest sales volume is
not necessarily the best one and may not even be doing a good
all-around job. To reward this person on the basis of sales
volume alone can hurt the morale of others in the sales force.
Similarly, morale suffers if management criticizes a rep for low
volume when the contributing factor was low territorial
potential or unusually stiff competition. A performance-
appraisal system should forestall and help correct such
situations.
By evaluating the salespeople's achievements, management
helps them discover their own strengths and weaknesses. This
should motivate them to raise their levels of performance. Like
most people, sales reps seldom can make an effective self-
evaluation. In fact, when asked to rate themselves, low-
performing reps tend to overestimate their performance, while
high-performing reps tend to underestimate their performance.2
Further, even when reps do understand their performance is
unacceptable, they often are not able to determine the reasons

4. for this poor productivity.
Difficulties Involved in Evaluating Performance
Many duties assigned to salespeople cannot be measured
objectively, and some tasks are difficult to evaluate even on a
subjective basis. A manufacturer's representative is supposed to
service the firm's accounts; a wholesaler's sales rep is told to
avoid high-pressure selling; all salespeople are supposed to
build goodwill with customers. Even with close field
supervision of the sales force, these tasks can be evaluated only
subjectively. And, if management does not closely supervise the
salespeople in the field, it may be virtually impossible to
measure results from some of these duties.
By the same token, however, many tasks of a seemingly
subjective nature can actually be quantified. A salesperson's
tendency to pressure or oversell customers, for instance, might
be measured by tallying canceled orders, lost accounts, and
reorders.
The wide variety of conditions sales reps work under makes it
difficult for management to compare their productivity. There is
no satisfactory method for equating territorial differences in
potential, competition, or working conditions. It is difficult to
compare the performance of city salespeople with rural
salespeople, for example. Even if the districts are equal in
potential, they are not comparable in other ways.
467
460
PART 6 Evaluating Sales Performance
467

5. AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
467
Sales executives that work from the headquarters of an
international company should be culture-sensitive when
evaluating salespeople in other parts of the world. For example,
a performance appraisal approach that works well in the United
States might not be effective in India or Germany. This is why
it is critical for U.S. executives to take the time to learn and
understand the particular marketing and selling styles that work
best in other countries.
Most American sales managers promote a "can-do" spirit among
their salespeople, encouraging them to be enthusiastic and
optimistic. In Japan, however, a salesperson with this selling
style is in danger of coming across as a noisy braggart.
Another accepted evaluation approach in the United States is for
sales managers to be less authoritative—acting more like
coaches than bosses. In fact, 360-degree feedback assessments
involve subordinates giving constructive criticism to their
superiors. In many Latin American countries, however,
employees are not at all comfortable with this approach, and
react much better to a boss who is a strong authority figure.
Source: "Pop Quiz,* Sales & Marketing Management, January
2004, p. 20.
467
Sometimes performance evaluation is difficult because the
results of a salesperson's efforts may not be evident for some
time. A district's improved position may show up only after a
rep has been working there for a year or more. Furthermore,
when two or more people are involved in making a sale or in

6. servicing a customer, it usually is difficult to give individual
credit for results.
Importance of a Good Job Description
In the task of sales force evaluation, as we have seen for so
many other sales force management activities, a good job
description is critical. Evaluators must work from the reference
point of a statement about what a salesperson is supposed to do.
Otherwise, they are not in a good position to determine whether
or how effectively the job was done.
Program for Evaluating Performance
This section suggests a five-step procedural system for
evaluating sales force performance (see Figure 16-1). The
program is complete, but it is also expensive and time-
consuming.
Step 1. Establish Some Basic Policies
Preliminary to the actual evaluation, management should set
some ground rules. One question that calls for a decision is:
Who will participate in the evaluation? Several executives
normally are involved. One of the most likely is the
salesperson's immediate superior—perhaps a field supervisor, a
district manager, or a branch manager. The boss of the
immediate supervisor also is likely to be involved. Over 25
percent of companies today use an employee assessment known
as 360-degree feedback, which is especially effective in team
environments.3 This technique involves getting
467
BBA 3221
CHAPTER 16 Evaluating a Salesperson's Performance
461

7. 467
FIGURE 16-1 Procedure for evaluating salespeople
467
(
3. Set
performance standards
)1. Establish basic policies
4. Compare performances to standards
5. Discuss results with salespeople
467
evaluative feedback from an employee's peers, subordinates,
and clients, as well as superiors.
Certainly, the salesperson being evaluated should participate
actively, usually with some form of self-evaluation. Involving
salespeople in the development of their objectives creates a
greater sense of responsibility and commitment on the part of
the salespeople. In some firms, the manager and salesperson
identify and negotiate specific goals for the upcoming period.
Then the rep and manager sign a performance agreement that
specifies these goals as the performance standards. This ensures
that there will be no misunderstandings about what is expected.
This process is often called management by objectives.
Another policy decision concerns the frequency of evaluation.
Figure 16-2 presents results of a survey of a wide cross-section
of sales organizations. As shown on the chart, 19 percent of
firms do not even conduct a formal performance evaluation with
their salespeople. Of those sales organizations that do evaluate

8. their salespeople, most do it at least on a quarterly basis.4
Synygy Inc., a software company, makes a point to have dozens
of performance reviews with its salespeople every year.
According to Synygy's vice president of sales, "If you don't
communicate frequently, they don't know where they stand, or
how well they're doing on performance improvement."5
Although the time and costs required to conduct more frequent
evaluations must be balanced against the benefits, the
improvements in performance generally outweigh the costs.
467
(
1dYC
25%
19%
•3
30
No evaluation At least
Quarterly to
Biannually
to
conducted
quarterly biannually annually
)
FIGURE 16-2
frequency of performance evaluations
Source: Based on a survey of over 200 salespeople, in Linda S.
Pettijohn, R. Stephen Parker, Charles E. Pettijohn, and John L.
Kent, "Performance Appraisals: Usage, Criteria and
Observations," Journal of Management Development 20, no. 9
(2001), pp. 754-71.
Burning of Cross

9. Burning of Cross
Name
Class
Date
Professor
Burning of Cross
The burning of a cross in America is a symbolic act
associated with hate, prejudice, and many, many injustices. The
burning cross emerged during a time when racial tension was at
its highest and members of the Ku Klux Klan used this as a
symbol for their hatred of African Americans. In the South there
has always been a major racial divide that still exists until this
day. During a time when African American were fighting for
equality and to live in a society free of discrimination while the
opposition, some Southern White Americans, and members of

10. the white supremacy group, the Ku Klux Klan fought to keep
African Americans as second class citizens.
History
Burning of the cross originated from Scotland when warriors
would light a cross as a symbol of faith for their journey into
the battle (Adams, 1993). The Scots also used the cross as a
warning with marauders or enemies attempted to bring battle to
their doorstep. The Klan began in 1866 in Tennessee as a group
similar to the Knights Templar as a mysterious society who
dealt out justice in the countryside as they saw fit. The name of
the Ku Klux Klan was derived from the Greek word kyklos,
meaning "circle," and the Scottish-Gaelic word "clan," which
was probably chosen for the sake of alliteration (Adams, 1993)
Originally the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan the
group claims burning a cross is a ritual of the group based on an
ancient ritual designed to create an unconquerable race of men.
The Ku Klux Klan believes white men are this unconquerable
race and should be the most powerful race on earth. Back when
the Ku Klux Klan originated blood sacrifices were made to the
fiery cross to ensure the white race would prevail. When the
group originated in Pulaski, Tennessee as a secret society they
wore masks to hide their identities.
The first burning of the cross occurred when William J.
Simmons, the founder of the Klan in its second incarnation
(1915-1944), cobbled together a cross and burned it at a
meeting of the newly-established Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
in 1915 (Adams, 1993). Flaming crosses have been a Klan
trademark ever since but were not originally intended to
intimidate but to instead honor the traditions of past Scottish
clansmen. Overtime the use of the cross changed when people
began to associate the burning cross with the Klan. The burning
cross was then used to warn anyone who went against the Klan
but especially against minorities after the Civil War.
Purpose
The burning of the cross will always be a symbol of a
terrible time in American history. White supremacy groups

11. would burn crosses in front of the homes, church, and
businesses of African American citizens who dared oppose their
goal of white racial superiority. The KKK was determined to
create fear through violence and burning crosses. African
American citizens quickly began to understand the symbol of
the cross. The burning cross in the front yard of an African
American citizen’s home or business was designed to intimidate
and force the African American citizen to vote the way to group
wanted.
Cross burning began as a ritual of the Ku Klux Klan but
ended up as a tool used for violence and intimidation. African
American citizens with burning crosses in their front yards
understood this was a warning from the white supremacist group
and people that did not comply would mysteriously disappear or
later be found hanging from a tree. The burning cross quickly
became a symbol of hate and represented the ignorance of the
people in the South before the social and political change that
was ushered in with the Civil Rights Movement. While cross
burning is a medieval practice, in the South it became a Racist
practice perpetuated by Christian in the South.
Legal Ramifications of Cross Burning
Many states ban the burning of a cross, such as California,
Florida, and Virginia. In Virginia the law against burning
crosses was tested in the case of Virginia vs. Black. The case
began when Barry Black, leader of the Ku Klux Klan, burned a
cross in a county and Virginia and was charged and found guilty
of cross burning. Black appealed finding the government should
not have the authority to regulate a form of symbolic expression
especially when the purpose of burning the cross was not to
intimate but for a ritual for him and his fellow brothers in the
Klan. (Gey, 2005).
Black claimed the flag burning law in Virginia was a
violation of his constitutional right to free speech under the
First Amendment. The First Amendment allows groups in
society to freely express their beliefs without interruption by
the government. Black claimed the flag burning law violated his

12. ability to freely express his beliefs. In return the Supreme Court
allowed for violations of free speech if the free speech is being
used to intimidate, as a threat, or to incite violence. Since the
burning of the cross symbolizes a past of violence, hate, and
tragedy the court ruled it was not protected speech.
The final ruling of the court was crosses cannot be burned if
the goal of the burning of the cross is to create fear, incite
violence and for purposes of hate as well as create a true threat.
Crosses can only be burned if they are being burned for a ritual.
Despite this ruling the court determined Virginia’s cross
burning law was in fact unconstitutional because juries are
instructed to consider any types of cross burning to be illegal
(Brannon, 2003). Under the First Amendment citizens have
freedom of religion and the freedom to express these religious
beliefs. When a burning of cross ritual is religious it is
protected. Virginia’s law does not provide this protection.
As a result of the Supreme Courts ruling in Virginia vs.
Black not all cross burning will be considered a form of
coercion or threat due to a previous history of cross burning for
spiritual purposes. The dissenting vote found that the majority
vote was wrong and in fact the history of cross burning in
Scotland does not affect American society and has never
influenced cross burning for spiritual purposes. The only reason
crosses have been burned in America is in order to intimidate
minorities and strike fear of the potential repercussions they
will face if they do not do as the white supremacy group wishes.
Burning of the cross is not a religious and it is not a
positive part of American history. Free speech should never
pertain to hate or embrace a history of hate as with the Ku Klux
Klan and other white supremacy groups. Cross burning should
be illegal in all fifty states and result in hate crime charges
when they are burned in order to intimidate or strike fear in the
heart of an African American citizen. Throughout Southern
American history Klan, cross burnings has been used as a tool
to intimidate and threaten imminent violence against minorities
and groups in society that do not embrace their beliefs or accept

13. their racist behavior.
Conclusion
In the United States the burning of the cross has one
significant meaning and that is off hate. Despite the recent
ruling of the Supreme Court this behavior should never be
conducted for any reason and should be a forbidden practice for
all American citizens. If a cross is burned at the home or
business of an African American citizen it is automatically
assumed this is an act of intimidation because it is. There is no
other reason to burn a cross than to send a message of hate or a
warning to some group in society.
References
Adams, C. (1993). Why does the Ku Klux Klan burn crosses?
Retrieved February 25, 2014 from
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1038/why-does-the-
ku-klux-klan-burn-crosses
Brannon, C L. (2003). Note, Constitutional Law—Hate
Speech—First Amendment Permits Ban
on Cross Burning When Done with the Intent to Intimidate,
Miss. L. J. 73(1): 323.
Gey, S. (2005). A Few Questions About Cross Burning,
Intimidation, and Free Speech, Notre
Dame L. Rev. 80: 1287.