The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making Sales Technology Effective
Abstract
Firms invest billions of dollars in sales technologies (STs; e.g., customer relationship management, sales automation tools) to improve sales force effectiveness and efficiency. However, the results expected from ST investments are often not achieved. This article proposes relationship-forging tasks that are critical to the link between ST use and key aspects of salesperson performance (i.e., a salesperson's relationship-building performance with customers and administrative performance). The authors evaluate relationship-forging tasks in the context of a model that considers the antecedents and consequences of three different uses of ST: accessing, analyzing, and communicating information. In general, the results of a field study, which is analyzed using block-recursive structural equation modeling, support the relationship-forging theory and show that relationship-forging tasks predict 57% of the variance in a salesperson's relationship-building performance with customers. The findings also support hypotheses that using ST either to analyze or to communicate information has mediated positive effects on a salesperson's relationship-building performance with customers. However, a salesperson's use of ST to analyze information has negative influences on administrative performance, creating an unexpected trade-off for sales and marketing managers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Developing buyer-seller relationships
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298705100202 · Cited by 9,139
Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures
Huber, G. P. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.88 · Cited by 8,072
An Examination of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.2307/1251829 · Cited by 6,822
Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships
Ganesan, S. (1994) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299405800201 · Cited by 6,741
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An Interpersonal Influence Perspective
Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299005400306 · Cited by 4,763
Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective.
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305 · Cited by 3,618
Cited by
Cross-Sectional versus longitudinal survey research: concepts, findings, and guidelines
Rindfleisch, A., Malter, A. J., Ganesan, S., & Moorman, C. (2008) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.3.261 · Cited by 1,305
Homburg, C., Müller, M., & Klarmann, M. (2011) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1509/jm.75.2.55 · Cited by 532
Getting Smart: Learning From Technology-Empowered Frontline Interactions
Marinova, D., de Ruyter, K., Huang, M.-H., Meuter, M. L., & Challagalla, G. (2017) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670516679273 · Cited by 363
Hautamäki, P., & Heikinheimo, M. (2025) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115396 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Hunter, G. K., & Perreault, W. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-34
- ISSN
- 0022-2429 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7185
- OpenAlex
- W1975931787
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 8.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Making Sales Technology Effective. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.016
- The paper
- Hunter, G. K., & Perreault, W. D. (2007). Making Sales Technology Effective. Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.1.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.