The experimental design was successful in answering each of the proposed hypotheses and research questions. H1-H3, as well as RQ1, were all answered through the binary logistic regression, which indicated that all of the derived sales outcome drivers were significantly related to the proposal selection. RQ2 was also answered through the binary logistic regression, as well as the mean difference tests, which indicated that adaptability had the strongest effect on the proposal selection process. RQ3 was answered through the indifference curve analysis, which showed the various trade-off relationships between price-adaptability and price-relationship across numerous respondent groups. H4a-c and RQ4 were answered through the paired-samples t-test, which indicated that there were significant differences among the importance of price, adaptability and relationship-potential when evaluating the organizational buyer’s decision to select versus not select a sales proposal.
5.1.1. Winning vs. Losing Sales Proposals
The result of the respondent’s perceived levels of importance on price, adaptability and relationship-potential across the evaluation of the winning sales proposals (sales performance) versus losing sales proposals (sales failure) indicated that significant differences existed.
Respondents’ indicated that the dimensions of price, adaptability and relationship-potential were all significantly more important in regard to their decision to select a given proposal, compared to their decision to not select a given proposal. This in turn means that these sales proposal dimensions are not pure inverses of one another with regard to these independent decisions. Stated another way, if the respondents did perceive the sales proposal dimensions as equal
contributors to their decision to select a sales proposal (sales performance) versus not select a sales proposal (sales failure), then no significant differences would exist between the mean importance evaluations. The significant differences which did exist between the mean
importance evaluations of price, adaptability and relationship-potential across sales performance and sales success support H4a-H4c.
These findings are important because in the existing sales literature, implied assumptions which view sales failure as the pure inverse of sales performance exist. Researchers have assumed that the characteristics which are perceived as important to an organizational
purchaser’s decision to select a proposal would be equally important in the individuals decision not to select a sales proposal if they were at opposed levels. Findings from this study indicate that this assumption is not correct and imply that researchers need to differentiate their dependent variable and analysis based on the research goals. Separate data collection efforts or questions need to be administered in order to accurately assess the determining factors in a buyer’s evaluation of performance versus failure.
5.1.2. Importance of Price, Adaptability and Relationship-Potential
Despite differences between the evaluation criteria of sales performance versus sales failure, there were minimal differences in the perceived order of importance in which price, adaptability and relationship-potential played in the organizational purchaser’s decision to select versus not select a sales proposal. When reflecting on the importance which the manipulated variables played in the decision maker’s selection, adaptability was more important than price and relationship-potential in the decision to select, as well as not select, a given sales proposal. The mean importance evaluation of relationship-potential was greater than price for the sales performance outcome, while price was greater than relationship-potential for the sales failure
outcome, however these differences were non-significant and thus the results are difficult to interpret. Results indicate that adaptability (or a lack thereof) of the salesperson and/or sales organization will play the largest role in the outcome of the sales proposal.
5.1.3. Binary Logistic Regression
The order of importance in which the independent variables played in the proposal selection dependent variable was reiterated to a large degree when interpreting the beta-coefficients provided in the binary logistic regression. As indicated by the beta-weights, adaptability was the strongest predictor of the proposal selection amongst the experimental variables (β=-3.077), followed by price (β=-2.788) and relationship-potential (β=-1.437). The results confirm that the three primary themes outlined in the qualitative findings, adaptability, relationship-potential and cost, do have a significant impact on the organizational buyer’s sales proposal selection.
An additional finding provided by the binary logistic regression includes the probability of selecting a sales proposal based on the levels of the independent variables. When the proposals were paired against a moderate sales proposal, the calculated probabilities provided the
following order of selection likelihood: (1) Low Price, High Adaptability, High Relationship- Potential [95.55%], (2) Low Price, High Adaptability, Low Relationship-Potential [83.62%], (3) High Price, High Adaptability, High Relationship-Potential [56.93%], (4) Low Price, Low Adaptability, High Relationship-Potential 49.77%], (5) High Price, High Adaptability, Low Relationship-Potential [23.90%], (6) Low Price, Low Adaptability, Low Relationship-Potential [19.06%], (7) High Price, Low Adaptability, High Relationship-Potential [5.75%], and (8) High Price, Low Adaptability, Low Relationship-Potential [1.43%],
5.1.4. Indifference Curves
With regard to the price/adaptability trade-off relationship, a comparison was developed using the calculated slope (βadapt / βprice), indicating a baseline slope of 1.10. A comparison indicates that the following groups indicated a flatter slope, meaning less pricing power for adaptability: low/high work experience (1.06; 1.10), low/high brand sensitivity (1.06; 0.93), high propensity to trust (0.89), high purchasing decision involvement (0.58), low purchasing dollar responsibility (0.78), small company size (0.88), high company sales (1.00) and
initiator/influencer/user (0.58; 0.64; 0.88). Conversely, the following groups indicated a steeper slope, meaning greater pricing power for adaptability: low propensity to trust (1.44), low purchasing decision involvement (1.58), high purchasing dollar responsibility (1.42), large company size (1.38) and low company sales (1.15).
With regard to the price/relationship-potential trade-off relationship, a comparison was also developed using the calculated slope (βrelationship-potential / βprice), indicating a baseline slope of 0.55. A comparison indicates that the following groups indicated a flatter slop, meaning less pricing power for relationship-potential: low work experience (0.34), high propensity to trust (0.22), high decision involvement (0.48), small company size (0.45), low company sales (0.39) and influencer/user (0.54; 0.51). Conversely, the following groups indicated a steeper slope, meaning greater pricing power for relationship-potential: high work experience (0.74), low/high brand sensitivity (1.14; 0.98), low propensity to trust (0.97), low purchasing decision
involvement (1.74), low/high purchasing dollar responsibility (1.01; 0.80), large company sales (0.62), high company sales (0.65) and initiator/decider (0.92; 0.76).
Per the baseline model, adaptability had a stronger trade-off effect than relationship-potential on the price the buyer was willing to pay for a sales proposal. This relationship however was not
standardized across all respondent characteristics. Results indicate that respondent profile characteristics had an effect on the pricing power of adaptability and relationship-potential. This effect was most notably present when comparing the high and low brand sensitivity groups. Within both the high and low brand sensitivity groups, relationship-potential gained a higher degree of pricing power when compared to adaptability. This effect also occurred within the low purchasing decision involvement group and the low purchasing dollar responsibility group.
Results also show that within the propensity to trust group, respondents who had a low propensity to trust indicated adaptability and relationship-potential were more important to their comparative baseline slopes, whereas high propensity to trust respondents indicated that these trade-offs were less impactful compared to their baseline slopes. The same results occurred within the low/high purchasing decision involvement group. Conversely, results indicate that across respondents who worked for a small versus a large company, adaptability and
relationship-potential had a weaker trade-off effect within small companies, yet a stronger trade- off effect within large companies. Finally, a crossing effect occurred within the company sales respondent profile, indicating that while adaptability had a stronger pricing effect within the low company sales group and a weaker pricing effect within the high company sales group,
relationship-potential had a weaker pricing effect within the low company sales group and a stronger pricing effect within the high company sales group. Together, the derived slope comparisons demonstrate group-difference implications and the relative pricing power of adaptability and relationship-potential across respondent profiles.