Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

ISSN: 0885-3134 (Print) 1557-7813 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpss20

Qualitative sales research: an exposition of

grounded theory
Jeff S. Johnson
To cite this article: Jeff S. Johnson (2015) Qualitative sales research: an exposition of
grounded theory, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 35:3, 262-273, DOI:
10.1080/08853134.2014.954581
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.954581

Published online: 10 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 83

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpss20
Download by: [University of Otago]

Date: 16 November 2015, At: 19:12

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 2015

Vol. 35, No. 3, 262273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08853134.2014.954581

Qualitative sales research: an exposition of grounded theory

Jeff S. Johnson*
Henry W. Bloch School of Management, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 5110 Cherry Street, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

(Received 10 March 2014; accepted 11 August 2014)

The dominant research paradigm in sales research involves testing theory through empirical research. Nascent or
underdeveloped research areas, however, may lack or have inadequate existing theories to explain sales-related phenomena.
In these cases, sales researchers require a theory-generating methodological approach. Qualitative research designs are
useful in this pursuit. The purpose of this article is to provide an exposition of one such qualitative research design
grounded theory. To this end, the foundational processes of grounded theory methodology are discussed. The results of a
review of grounded theory examinations conducted in sales research are also provided, and current practices utilized by
sales grounded theorists are discussed. Based on this review, future directions in substantive areas and methodological
practices are provided. This article aims to serve as a resource for sales scholars wishing to know what grounded theory
examinations have been conducted, how to implement grounded theory research and what avenues are available for future
grounded theory sales research.
Keywords: qualitative methodology; grounded theory; theoretical development; salesperson; sales management

Understanding the complex array of individual, organizational and environmental factors affecting the performance,
perspectives and attitudes of salespeople is a daunting
endeavour. The most common approach to generating
knowledge in this pursuit is quantitative research. Quantitative research is a deductive process whereby theoretically based hypotheses are tested using numerically
measured variables and some form of statistical analysis
(De Vos et al. 2002). While this type of research is essential
to advancing the body of sales knowledge, sales researchers also frequently utilize qualitative research. Qualitative
research employs an inductive approach and a fundamentally different role of the researcher and interpretation of
findings (Creswell 2007). In qualitative research, the
researcher plays an active role in both the generation and
interpretation of insight, and a more subjective perspective
on the nature of reality is embraced.
As Stake (2010) notes, there are many advantages to
using qualitative methods. Qualitative research allows for a
more discovery-oriented approach in conducting research
and can be particularly useful in exploring phenomena
where little understanding exists. A priori hypotheses are
not necessary in qualitative research. Qualitative approaches
can uncover themes and hypotheses entirely unknown to
the extant literature or the researcher. Researchers are thus
able to generate rather than test theory. Further, qualitative
approaches often allow for the voice of the participant to be
heard through their responses to open-ended questions.
This can provide deeper insight and more complete
understandings of the perspectives of the applicable

*Email: johnsonjs@umkc.edu
2014 Taylor & Francis

population. Finally, qualitative approaches provide greater

researcher flexibility and subjective interpretation, which
may be necessary for understanding highly complex
phenomena.
Due to the benefits of qualitative methodology and its
applicability to the sales domain, a need exists to expound
upon qualitative methods in sales research. The sales
profession is evolving at an increasing rate due to marked
upticks in dynamism and complexity in the marketplace
(Jones et al. 2005). Accordingly, theories once useful in
predicting sales-related phenomena in some cases may no
longer apply and, in others, may require substantive
alteration and development. For example, nascent research
areas related to how salespeople are using technology and
the changing nature of customer interactions (e.g. social
media) offer ripe contexts for qualitative theoretical
development.
A bevvy of qualitative approaches is available to
researchers; however, this manuscript focuses specifically
on grounded theory. Grounded theory is a qualitative
research design in which the inquirer generates a general
explanation (a theory) of a process, action, or interaction
shaped by the views of a larger number of participants
(Creswell 2007, 63). Grounded theory was selected
because this approach is among the most commonly used
qualitative methods in the social sciences (Gummesson
2003) and is highly prevalent in qualitative sales research
(e.g. Lee and Cadogan 2009; Malshe and Sohi 2009b;
Pryor, Malshe, and Paradise 2013).

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

To provide clarity on the role and usage of grounded

theory in sales research, a discussion of its underlying
tenets is specified. Subsequently, a review of exemplars of
grounded theory usage in sales research is provided and
current practices are discussed using a synthesis of the
exemplar articles. Finally, future avenues for grounded
theory application in sales research including both substantive and methodological directions are advanced to
serve as a resource for scholars in efficaciously utilizing
grounded theory in sales research.
Understanding grounded theory
Grounded theory traces its origin to 1967 when it was
developed by sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm
Strauss to promote the discovery of theory from data.
The primary strategy identified in the application of
grounded theory is the general method of comparative
analysis (GMCA). The GMCA involves the comparison of
facts across cases to assess similarities and differences to
discover the generalizability and boundary conditions of a
concept (Glaser and Strauss 2009). In the GMCA, new
cases are compared to old ones, with the result being either
confirmation of original insights if similar or reformulation
of insights if different. Each new case both provides clarity
on existing insights and shapes future inquiries with new
insights. Importantly, grounded theory recognizes the role
of the researcher in the interpretation of the data. Theoretical sensitivity refers to the ability of the researcher to
understand the meaning of data and nuances of theory
and is shaped by personality, temperament and experience
in a research area (Glaser and Strauss 2009). As such, the
nature and quality of results obtained from grounded theory
examinations are predicated not only on its participants
but also on the researcher.
Glaser and Strauss, however, developed a fundamental
disagreement on the nature and meaning of grounded
theory and diverged in their application of its usage.
Strauss conceptualized grounded theory in a much more
structured, methodical manner than Glaser who believed
that such an approach forced the results from the data
rather than allowed them to emerge in an interpretivist
fashion (Glaser 1992). As such, researchers should recognize a trade-off based on which form of grounded theory is
used. The approach used by Glaser is much more open and
flexible, whereas the Strauss approach is more structured
and arguably more rigorous and objective in advancing
new theoretical understanding. The conceptualization
employed by Strauss is the focus of this manuscript, as the
subsequent literature search reveals this approach to be the
dominant paradigm in grounded theory sales research.
However, recently other disciplines have been embracing
more interpretivist, constructivist, less-structured approaches,
and guidance is available for sales scholars seeking to use
this approach (e.g. Charmaz 2006).

263

Grounded theory data collection

To provide the cases with which to conduct comparison,
researchers utilize theoretical sampling. Theoretical sampling involves selecting sources with intimate and extensive knowledge pertinent to the research questions to
inform the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998),
and the sources from which to collect future data are
determined based on insights provided from data that have
been already been collected (Glaser and Strauss 2009).
Accordingly, the sampling plan is not fixed upon the
inception of the study, but rather is shaped and reshaped as
the research process unfolds and theory is developed.
Additionally, researchers are encouraged to both minimize
and maximize differences amongst comparative groups at
various points in their collection. Minimizing differences
makes similarities and differences within a given group
more salient, while maximizing group differences allows
the researcher to understand potential boundary conditions
and nuances in the theory (Glaser and Strauss 2009).
Contrary to many traditional research designs in which the
collection and analysis of data are two sequential and
discrete processes, collection and analysis in grounded
theory are concurrent and intertwined. In grounded theory,
collections and analyses occur in a lock-step fashion, each
influencing the other. Initial data are analysed, and initial
emergent insights are obtained. Based on these insights,
the questions in the data collection are amended and/or
new questions are added. This process continues until the
point of theoretical saturation at which no new insights
emerge. Notably, theoretical saturation is related to maximum variation in theoretical sampling. Saturation would
occur quickly if maximally similar participants are
included instead of those with significant variation.
Grounded theory data analysis
Data analysis in grounded theory can best be conceptualized as a series of coding steps conducted on the relevant
data provided for the analysis as espoused by Strauss and
Corbin (1990, 1998). The first step in coding the data is the
open coding process. In open coding, the researcher first
assigns all meaningful quotations to a higher-level major
category of information. Subsequently, the researcher then
organizes these categories further through axially coding.
In axial coding, the open codes are analysed to uncover the
core phenomenon as well as the categories around the core
phenomenon such as categories that influence the central
phenomenon, strategies for addressing the phenomenon,
contextual and intervening conditions shaping the strategies and consequences of undertaking the strategies
(Strauss and Corbin 1990). The final coding step consists
of selective coding. Selective coding refers to the process
by which all categories are unified around a core category,
and categories that need further explication are filled-in
with descriptive detail (Corbin and Strauss 1990, 424).

264

J.S. Johnson

Selective coding provides the necessary integration for

connecting the identified axial codes and creating an
articulated theory (Creswell 2007). Researchers use their
understanding of the phenomenon along with the data to
create a conceptual model explicating the theory and
provide appropriate connections between the axial codes.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Review of grounded theory examinations in sales

research
To provide a reference of grounded theory examinations in
sales research, an extensive search of the literature was
conducted. The search was structured to identify studies
generating theory germane to salespeople and sales
managers. In this pursuit, multiple queries were conducted
using a variant of salesperson or sales manager and a
variant of a potential indication of grounded theory design
(grounded theory, qualitative, in-depth interviews, open
coding, etc.). Table 1 delineates the topics, samples, data
sources and key findings of the studies. Notably, to warrant
inclusion in the table, the studies had to be specifically
designed to provide insight and theory regarding salespeople and/or sales managers. Countless examinations
have included salespeople as part of a sample combined
with members from other functions of organizations (e.g.
Bendapudi and Leone 2002). Accordingly, the perspectives and insights shared by participants are combined into
a theoretical model that may or may not be comprised of
sales insight relevant to salespeople and sales managers,
and thus, these studies were not included. Finally, the
intent of the inquiry was to uncover qualitative work in the
sales domain using grounded theory. As such, mixed
methods studies that also employed a quantitative component were beyond the scope of the present examination.
As recently as a decade ago, researchers lamented the
absence of grounded theory examinations in sales research
and called for greater utilization of this design (Geiger and
Turley 2003). The results of the present inquiry are
encouraging as the proliferation of this technique over the
last 10 years has been substantial. The articles identified in
Table 1 were reviewed carefully to identify techniques
employed by sales researchers utilizing grounded theory as
well as provide insights for future research.

Application of grounded theory in sales research

Each of the articles listed in Table 1 was analysed to
identify the practices sales researchers are employing in
grounded theory examinations. Twenty-four different
elements concerning the framing of the grounded theory
approach, sample and data collection, data analysis and
presentation of findings were inspected across all articles.
These elements are listed in Table 2 and are discussed
subsequently.

Framing the grounded theory approach

A near-universal notion for sales researchers publishing
work using grounded theory is the need to justify its use.
All but one of the studies identified made explicit
statements in their respective methodology sections providing a rationale as to why grounded theory was appropriate. By far the most common reasons given by these
studies were the nascent stage of the given research area
and the underdeveloped nature of surrounding theories.
Sales researchers should justify using grounded theory to
make clear to readers the merit of this approach. Failure
to do so explicitly may undermine readers confidence in
the findings and discussion.
Researchers also made clear their position in the
Glaser/Strauss debate. The results are conclusive with all
but two articles citing the Strauss approach and none citing
the Glaser approach. In fact, some articles provide complete clarity on this issue by specifically stating that the
Glaser approach is not being used (e.g. Lee and Cadogan
2009). Perhaps due to resistance that can be encountered
in publishing qualitative research, sales researchers have
embraced a very meticulous, rigorous approach to utilizing
grounded theory.
Another option available for sales researchers in
framing the grounded theory approach is to provide the
reader with explicit research questions the study seeks to
answer. Unlike the previous two elements, this practice is
the exception rather than the rule with only four studies
taking this approach. As in grounded theory even the
fundamental research questions may evolve as part of
the research process, explicitly stated research questions
are not requisite.
Sample and data collection
Consistent with guidance obtained from top-quality journals such as the Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management to systematically document information
about the sample(s) utilized (Ahearne 2013), all of the
grounded theory articles included detailed information
about the characteristics of their samples. Pertinent details
provided included information such as title, experience,
gender, firm size, industry, level in the company, businessto-business or business-to-consumer sales and goods or
services sales. Providing these details is of paramount
importance to help readers understand the sources of the
perspectives being shared. Beyond simply describing the
sample, a nice value-added feature provided in all but two
of the grounded theory sales studies is a table delineating
the sample characteristics. This approach is advisable as it
provides readers with a way to visualize the sample with
greater ease.
To obtain the requisite number of participants needed
to reach theoretical saturation, the researchers in the included
studies relied almost exclusively on personal contacts.

Table 1.

Examples of grounded theory examinations in sales research.

Topic area

Sample(s)

Type(s)
of data

Pryor, Malshe, and

Paradise (2013)
JPSSM

Salesperson listening

8 realtors, 23
customers

Interviews

Cicala, Smith and Bush

(2012) JBIM

Sales presentation
efficacy

10 salespeople,
10 buyers

Interviews

Malshe et al. (2012)

JBR

Marketing/sales
interface

15 salespeople,
22 marketers

Interviews

Malshe (2011) JBIM

Marketing/sales
interface

25 salespeople,
22 marketers

Interviews

Pullins et al. (2011)

JBIM

Inter-generational
relationship selling

24 salespeople

Interviews

Malshe (2010) JBR

Marketing/sales
interface

33 salespeople

Interviews

Lee and Cadogan

(2009) IMM

Sales manager social

exchange contributions

11 sales
managers,
8 salespeople

Observation,
interviews

Malshe (2009) JSM

Marketing/sales
interface

23 salespeople,
15 marketers

Interviews

Malshe and Sohi

(2009b) JAMS

Marketing/sales
interface

27 salespeople,
31 marketers

Interviews,
focus group

Key findings
The authors examine the nuanced nature of salesperson listening in sales relationships. By
conducting interviews with both buyers and sellers, they are able to provide multiple
perspectives. Their emergent findings show that listening conveys both cognitive and affective
meaning to buyers. Additionally, the results uncovered a temporal component to listening,
whereby buyers recognize changes in listening that occur over time.
Recognizing salespeople and buyers may have different perspectives on what makes a sales
presentation effective, the authors solicit input from both sides of the dyad. The emergent results
identify three key themes in efficacious presentations: knowledge, adaptability and trust but also
show there are differences in these themes between buyers and sellers.
The authors examine the marketing/sales interface in emerging markets. Findings show that this
important interface is different in the context studied as there is a high power distance and little
communication between parties. Important insight from the sales force may be lost for
companies in these countries.
The author explores the nascent research area of the marketing and sales interface focusing on
improving the connection between these two functions. Findings show the critical impact of
structure, language, process artifacts, social linkages and philosophical linkages in enhancing the
marketingsales connection and also the potential moderating influence of communication,
marketing flexibility, process ownership and joint team visibility.
The authors recognize the significant shift occurring in the sales force due to retiring baby
boomers being replaced by millennials. By interviewing a sample of young, business-to-business
salespeople, they identify perspectives of selling to an older age demographic as well as
strategies used by younger salespeople to bridge this divide.
The author utilizes interviews with a diverse group of salespeople to uncover what drives and
abates marketings credibility in the eyes of the salesperson. Results elucidate the importance of
expertise, trust and interpersonal proximity.
The authors explore the social exchange mechanisms that manifest in sales-related problem
resolution situations. The results reveal three important social exchange factors relevant to
problem resolution situations: responsiveness, caring and aggressiveness. These factors are
shaped by managerial and situational factors and affect problem resolution and relationships.
The author examines the different perceptions held by marketers and salespeople on roles in the
strategic process. Several different themes emerge including role-related and process-related
perceptual differences.
The authors seek to provide an initial understanding of the facilitators of the strategy-making
process between marketing and sales. Their grounded theory analysis reveals a three-stage model
illustrating the important facets and sequencing of the marketing/sales strategy-making process.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Author(s)

265

266

Table 1 (Continued)

Topic area

Sample(s)

Type(s)
of data

Malshe and Sohi

(2009a) JPSSM

Marketing/sales
interface

29 salespeople,
20 marketers

Interviews

Bush et al. (2007)

JBR

Sales technology usage

33 sales
executives

Interviews

Beverland, Steel, and

Dapiran (2006)
JBIM

Marketing/sales
interface

36 salespeople,
8 marketers

Interviews

Turley and Geiger

(2006) EJM

Salesperson client
knowledge

36 salespeople

Observation,
interviews

Geiger and Turley

(2005) IMM

Salesperson
socialization with
customers

24 salespeople

Interviews

Geiger and Turley

(2003) JBIM

Salesperson client
knowledge

36 salespeople

Observation,
interviews

Key findings
The authors investigate the determinants of salesperson buy-in of marketing strategies. In-depth
interviews and a grounded theory analysis reveal the four critical components of objectivity/
rational persuasion, sensitivity/responsiveness to reality, involvement in strategy making and
positioning for success.
The authors explore the ethical issues presented by the growing usage of technology in the sales
force. They find that the ethical issues surrounding sales technology are represented by the major
themes of exploitation and control. Exploitation refers to the deceptive/privacy invasion impact
sales technology may have and control the accountability/loss of empowerment.
By interviewing multiple marketers and salespeople, the authors seek to uncover the inhibitors of
the marketing/sales relationship. The results find that marketing and sales often diverge on issues
such as focus of activity and temporal focus among others. This divergence can be a source of
detrimental conflict.
The authors explore how salespeople conduct relational learning with their customers and
identify several different qualities relational learning possesses. They further identify antecedents
and consequences associated with this focal phenomenon.
The authors discuss a prevalent, yet under researched, sales practice: socializing with customers.
In business-to-business selling, customer entertainment can be important in developing
constructive and profitable relationships. The results identify the benefits of customer
entertainment such as having the customers undivided attention, thanking them for their
business, airing complaints, gaining knowledge, breaking the ice and providing a buffer for
future potential conflicts.
The authors espouse the need for more grounded theory research in the sales domain and
examine the topic of salesperson client knowledge. Results show that salespeople have a wide
array of types of relationships with their clients with many antecedents and consequences.

EJM, European Journal of Marketing; IMM, Industrial Marketing Management; JAMS, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science; JBIM, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing; JBR, Journal of
Business Research; JPSSM, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management; JSM, Journal of Strategic Marketing.

J.S. Johnson

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Author(s)

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

267

Table 2. Application of grounded theory in sales research.

Framing

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

. Justification of method
. Strauss vs. Glaser
. Listing of research questions

Sample and data collection

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Description of sample
Table of sample
Snowball sampling
Interview mode
Interview length
Recording hours
Transcription pages
Questions asked
Confidentiality assured
Mention of theoretical saturation

While unquestionably efficient, sales researchers should

be highly cognizant of the amount of variation amongst
participants when using this approach. For example,
researchers seeking to develop theory in areas such as
the marketing and sales interface could obtain perspectives
from personal contacts in only one company. However,
this would preclude perspectives from larger or smaller
firms, more or less competitive industries and many other
factors that may influence perspectives of the interface. As
such, it is recommended sales researchers seek as broad a
base as applicable to help generalize their theoretical
findings. Another approach that can be utilized in sampling is the snowballing technique. Snowball sampling
involves soliciting primary participants contacted for the
study for the contact information of people they know that
would be potentially applicable to the given inquiry
(Browne 2005). Snowball sampling helps the researcher
increase the size of their sample in a relatively efficient
manner; however, caution should be used when using this
approach as the perspectives of referred participants may
be too close to those referring them. Accordingly,
participants acquired through a snowballing approach
may have largely homogenous perspectives and may fail
to yield maximal insight. Only three of the identified
studies employed snowball sampling.
Regarding theoretical saturation, the majority of studies explicitly stated collection was terminated once theoretical saturation was reached. Several studies, however,
did not provide this information. Sales researchers should
mention theoretical saturation as grounded theory sample
sizes are often quite small, and researchers can assuage
readers concerns that more insights could be gleaned if
the process was continued.
In their collection of the data, due to the ongoing and
dynamic nature of grounded theory inquiry, it is important
for sales researchers to practice and specifically note the
sound handling of the data collected. First, in all cases
interviews were recorded. Recordings allow the researchers to go back and supplement their notes as well as

Data analysis
.
.
.
.

Discussion of coding process

Discussion of iterative nature
Qualitative data analysis software
Inter-rater agreement or proportional
reduction in loss
. Peer debriefing
. Member checks

Presenting results
.
.
.
.
.

Coding table
Frequency of codes
Direct quotes
Propositions
Visual model

provide quotations from participants using their own voice.

Second, recorded data should be transcribed verbatim.
Transcriptions provide the researcher with both visual and
auditory means of comprehending the data thus enhancing
their understanding of and emersion into the data. Sales
researchers should consider including the information on
the aggregate number of hours of recordings and transcribed pages in their descriptions of the collection. Only
three studies provided the number of hours of recordings
obtained, only four provided the number of transcribed
pages and just one provided both for the reader. Sales
researchers did a better job reporting the ranges of the
lengths of interviews conducted. All but two studies note
the ranges which spanned from 30 to 120 minutes.
Sales researchers in all cases provided information on
the medium over which the interviews were conducted
(e.g. phone, face-to-face). Quite seldom, however, did
they indicate what questions were asked of participants.
Due to the dynamic nature of the grounded theory process,
the interview guide evolves as the process unfolds and,
as such, researchers may choose to discuss the types of
topics discussed with participants rather than providing
explicit interview questions.
Finally, a simple and important consideration that was
stated in only four of the studies is the provision of
assurance of confidentiality and anonymity to participants.
Participants who are concerned their specific responses
may be shared may respond to questions in a biased manner.
While some may contend confidentiality and anonymity
are implied in ethical research, this information should be
explicitly included to assure the reader.

Data analysis
In conducting data analysis in grounded theory studies,
researchers should use qualitative data analysis software to
organize their data. As grounded theory collections can
produce extremely large amounts of data, the ability to
readily code and effectively analyse data is of paramount

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

268

J.S. Johnson

importance. There are a host of qualitative software

packages such as NVivo, ATLAS.ti, NUD*IST and
many others available for sales researchers (see Grbich
2012 for a detailed overview). While each program has its
benefits and drawbacks in relation to the other programs,
all programs offer researchers a means of classifying
codes in uploaded transcripts. Notably, divergent from
other types of analytical software, qualitative software
does not perform analyses for the researcher. Rather, the
value to the researcher is in the organization of the data.
The researcher must then go through this organized data
and manually conduct the analysis. Use of qualitative data
analysis software is invaluable to researchers, however, as
the organization allows them to not only see codes within
a given case but also codes across cases. This functionality can allow researchers to better assess heterogeneity
amongst codes made between cases to refine their
analysis. Qualitative data analysis software was used in
over half of the exemplar studies in Table 1. Interestingly,
while many software options are available, NVivo was the
only software used. NVivo provides convenient coding
and node structuring to facilitate the different coding steps
in grounded theory and, as such, is a useful tool for sales
grounded theorists.
Sales researchers also provided clarity on the coding
process and iterative nature specific to grounded theory. In
all but one case, the coding process was described and in
all but three cases, the iterative nature of the collection and
analysis was mentioned. Further, in about half of the
studies, sales researchers sought to assuage concern of
biased subjectivity in their coding by assessing inter-rater
agreement or proportional reduction in loss (PRL; Rust
and Cooil 1994). The researchers often provided independent judges agreement or disagreement with how the
researchers coded the participants quotations. While
inter-rater agreement scores may be calculated based on
the simple percentage of agreement between coders, Rust
and Cooils (1994) PRL approach can be utilized as well.
PRL has the advantage of accounting for the number of
coding categories when assessing the agreement amongst
coders. Use of these techniques is a controversial notion in
grounded theory research. Researchers have argued that
the fundamental nature of grounded theory precludes
inter-judge tests and that inter-judge tests are not feasible
for GT based on its interpretive nature (Wagner, Lukassen, and Mahlendorf 2010, 8). Essentially, the argument is
that two researchers will have different perspectives on the
data and thus inter-rater agreement is irrelevant. Other
researchers, however, believe that these assessments provide a level of objectivity to the analysis (Malshe and Sohi
2009a, 2009b; Pullins et al. 2011). Regardless of the sales
researchers position on this issue, if this process is done,
researchers should report the result of the test. In two
cases, researchers indicated PRL was performed but did
not report the resultant value. Researchers should either

refrain from this practice entirely or provide the statistic

if used.
Member checking the findings is another way sales
researchers helped build the case towards the veracity of
their analysis. Member checking consists of taking data
and interpretations back to the participants in the study so
that they can confirm the credibility of the information
(Creswell and Miller 2000, 127). By sharing the interpretations with the participants who provided the data
from which the interpretations are made, researchers can
assess their emergent theory through the eyes of the
relevant population of the study and make changes as
necessary. Member checking was performed in over half
of the sales examinations.
Additionally, the issue of reflexivity can be addressed
through the use of peer debriefing (Lincoln and Guba
1985). In peer debriefing, an external party with knowledge of the topic matter being explored critically reviews
the project and questions the process and methods
(Creswell and Miller 2000). It is recommended peer
debriefing be used over time during the process of a study
rather than at a singular point to maximize its benefit.
This process can solicit helpful feedback used to refine the
study as it progresses. Peer debriefing is used far less
commonly in sales research with only five studies reporting this procedure.
Finally, sales researchers also sought to demonstrate
the generalization of the theory across cases in their
population of interest. Though only two studies employed
this approach, refutability can be demonstrated by actively
seeking cases where findings are inconsistent and indicative of systematic differences (e.g. Malshe and Sohi
2009b). Across most grounded theory examinations both
within and outside of sales, it is noted that inconsistencies
are rarely found.
Presenting the findings
The presentation of findings contains universal and studyspecific elements as well. Every study identified in the
review included quotes taken directly from participants.
Inclusion of participant voices is an important part of
creating the deeper picture of an emergent theory and, as
such, should be included in sales-related grounded theory
examinations. Four of the included studies also included
tables showing the open, axial and selective codes created
from the grounded theory process. Though obviously not
requisite, this can provide readers with a concise picture of
the results of the analysis. Additionally, a small number
(three) of studies also included some form of quantification of code frequencies. While this may be useful for
researchers wishing to assuage concern their findings are
based on singular cases, quantification is not a necessary
attribute of a grounded theory analysis. Finally, researchers differed significantly in their synthesis of the results.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

The majority of studies (10) provided some sort of visual
depiction of the findings and theoretical model. This can
be helpful in framing readers interpretation of the results.
Researchers also can advance propositions based on the
findings; however, only two of the studies do so. As visual
depictions and propositions may help add clarity to the
findings for readers, these elements are encouraged where
applicable.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Future directions in grounded theory sales research

As shown in Table 1, sales scholars have utilized grounded
theory in many different contexts and have advanced
theoretical knowledge on key phenomena relevant to
todays sales force. However, there is room to expand
insight with grounded theory designs by exploring new
topic areas and improving methodological practices.
Substantive research areas
There are two contexts cited as most amenable to the use
of grounded theory in sales research. By either locating
a nascent area of sales research or examining existing
topic areas with evolving subareas in which theoretical
development is needed, sales researchers can contribute to
sales theory. In examining the topics of inquiry addressed
in the sales literature, examples of these two applications are readily apparent. The most common topic area
for grounded theory application in sales research is the
marketing/sales interface (e.g. Beverland, Steel, and
Dapiran 2006; Malshe 2009, 2010, 2011; Malshe and
Sohi 2009a, 2009b; Malshe et al. 2012). A likely causal
condition for the relative abundance of grounded theory
examinations in this topic area is its nascent nature. Sales
researchers have only begun researching this topic in
earnest over the past decade. Accordingly, many avenues
are still available for grounded theory research. For
example, while research has explored the marketing/sales
interface in detail as it pertains to strategy formation, there
is limited understanding of how the marketing/sales
interface operates where the strategy is actualized, namely
the customer interface. Understanding how the marketing/
sales interface applies directly to the customer experience
may prove illuminating for both academics and practitioners. Further, team selling places the customer in direct
contact with many organizational members other than the
salesperson, and its use has increased rapidly in the
marketplace (Tanner Jr. et al. 2005). In instances where
the customer has relationships with both the salesperson
and marketing manager, how does the customer experience this situation and what effects does it have?
Another common topic area for grounded theory is
understanding how salespeople interact with customers
(Geiger and Turley 2003; Geiger and Turley 2005; Turley
and Geiger 2006; Pullins et al. 2011; Cicala, Smith, and

269

Bush 2012; Pryor, Malshe, and Paradise 2013). Unlike the

marketing/sales interface, this topic area has received
significant research attention for some time; however,
these inquiries locate theoretically open spaces such as
salesperson listening, socialization and customer learning
which need theoretical construction. Another viable topic
area that could benefit from grounded theory research is
the salespersons use of social media. Todays social
media-intensive landscape has fundamentally changed the
dynamic of business relationships (Trainor 2012). The
private lives of customers and salespeople have become
more transparent and intertwined through vehicles such as
Facebook, Twitter and others. An exploration of the impact
of this shift on the perceptions of both salespeople and
customers would prove valuable. Researchers could examine this issue using matched customersalesperson dyads
to uncover similarities and divergences in perspective
and impact.
Beyond these tangential areas, there are other topics
amenable to a grounded theory approach that have yet to
be explored. Sales researchers have done an excellent job
of incorporating data collected from multiple respondent
groups to compare and contrast in their analyses such as
salespeople and marketers (e.g. Beverland, Steel, and
Dapiran 2006; Malshe and Sohi 2009b) and salespeople
and customers (e.g. Cicala, Smith, and Bush 2012; Pryor,
Malshe, and Paradise 2013). An interface that has been
largely ignored in grounded theory sales examinations,
however, is that between the sales manager and salesperson (e.g. Lee and Cadogan 2009). This is particularly
surprising given the espoused importance of this interface
and the significant quantitative attention that has been
placed on salespersonsales manager interaction (see
Johnson, Friend, and Horn 2014 for a review). Sales
researchers may be able to provide significant insight by
exploring areas of salespersonsales manager interaction
that are in need of theoretical development. For example,
Johlke and Duhan (2001) speculate a complex relationship
may exist between sales managersalesperson communication and salesperson performance. A grounded theory
exposition incorporating the perspectives of both sales
managers and salespeople may prove valuable in identifying facilitating and inhibiting factors.
Researchers should note, however, that not all nascent
or theoretically underdeveloped research areas are best
suited to a grounded theory design. In grounded theory,
the researcher plays an active and invasive role in data
collection, and respondents are often concerned with their
privacy (Stake 2010). Personal interviewing or observation may cause reactance in participants through the
observer effect, the notion that the knowledge one is
being studied alters ones responses and behaviours (Shipman 1988). Accordingly, when seeking to build theory on
topics where reactivity is likely to be most pronounced

270

J.S. Johnson

(e.g. ethical misconduct by salespeople), grounded theory

may not be an advisable approach.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Methodological improvements
The review of grounded theory in sales research reveals
that sales researchers have done a commendable job in
their operationalization of grounded theory applications;
however, the review also identifies certain aspects that are
underutilized or unused entirely. Cognizance of these
grounded theory facets can contribute to its application
and better advance knowledge generated through this
approach in the sales domain.
First, the exclusive dedication of sales researchers to
the Straussian approach may be limiting their ability to
advance insight using grounded theory. While the Straussian approach provides a strong structure in constructing a
process model (i.e. focal phenomenon and its antecedents,
outcomes and contextual conditions), not all topics are
best conceptualized in this fashion. Sales researchers
wishing to apply grounded theory as conceptualized by
Glaser need not feel prohibited in this approach as it is a
judgement call rather than an objective right or wrong
decision; however, researchers should be cognizant that
this approach bucks the trend and be very clear in their
rationale for and implementation of this grounded theory
variant. Using and citing recent methodological work
espousing the considerations of a more interpretivist,
constructivist stance would be advised for sales scholars
employing this approach (e.g. Charmaz 2006).
Second, grounded theory researchers in sales almost
exclusively use personal contacts as the basis for sample
procurement. This practice may limit the variation in
perspectives and insights gleaned in their theory-generation endeavours. Researchers can seek to augment their
personal contacts by using an industry list of potentially
relevant participants from a private or academic organization to diversify their sample (e.g. Tuli, Kohli, and
Bharadwaj 2007).
Third, an examination of the types of data sources
used in grounded theory reveals that the vast majority of
studies rely solely on data obtained from interviewing
participants. While using only interviews is an acceptable
practice, triangulation using multiple data types can better
assure readers on the internal validity of the research (Lee
and Cadogan 2009). Accordingly, sales researchers can
use data sources such as focus groups (e.g. Malshe and
Sohi 2009b), observation (e.g. Turley and Geiger 2006) or
outside-of-the-box sources like salespersoncustomer call
recordings to augment the findings gleaned from participant interviews.
Fourth, the majority of sales researchers mention
theoretical saturation; however, an additional process sales
researchers can use to demonstrate theoretical saturation
has been reached is discriminant sampling. In discriminant

sampling, researchers gather additional cases after the

theory has been constructed and analyse them to ascertain
if the theory still holds (Creswell 2007). If the cases fit the
advanced theory, greater validity can be ascribed to the
findings. If not, however, the researchers may go back to
the theoretical model, revise it and repeat this process.
Fifth, the sales researchers infrequently report the
recording hours or number of transcribed pages collected
from participants. Sales researchers should include this
information in the pursuit of demonstrating methodological rigour. Sales researchers did a commendable job
reporting the range of the lengths of their interviews;
however, (just as in quantitative research) the range is
much more useful for interpretation in conjunction with a
mean than as a stand-alone metric. As such, it would be
valuable for sales researchers to provide both the range
and mean values for interview length.
Sixth, the sales researchers can benefit by incorporating memoing in their grounded theory analyses consistent
with grounded theory practice in other domains. Memoing
consists of a continuous process whereby the researcher
writes down ideas about the theory and its substantive
component parts as the grounded theory analysis evolves
(Creswell 2007). Memoing has been identified as a critical
component of grounded theory research because if a
researcher omits the memoing and moves directly from
coding to writing, a great deal of conceptual detail is lost
or left undeveloped. A less well elaborated and satisfying
integration of the analysis will result (Corbin and Strauss
1990, 10). Despite this fact, this technique has yet to be
embraced in sales research, and the inclusion of memoing
can help sales researchers better connect their data to their
writing.
Seventh, the sales researchers could seek to improve
the manner in which they support the validity of their
findings. Despite the benefits they can imbue to researchers, peer debriefings and refutability checks occur rarely.
By incorporating these techniques, sales researchers could
better establish the veracity of their analyses.
Finally, despite its role as the core process of grounded
theory examination, sales grounded theorists are not
inclined to discuss the GMCA. The ability to readily
compare and contrast groups is of paramount importance
and should be mentioned in any grounded theory examination. A potential causal factor for this omission is the
difficulty in making comparisons across multiple contextual factors. To remedy this issue, sales researchers can
enhance their comparative ability through the use of
qualitative pivoting. Qualitative pivoting is a new-to-the
world technique that has not been discussed or implemented in any domain of inquiry but has significant
potential benefit for qualitative sales researchers. With
minimal input time, researchers can place all relevant
quotes into a Microsoft Excel file along with the
characteristics of different types of participants (gender,

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Figure 1.

271

(a) Excel le input; and (b) pivot table output.

industry, firm size, etc.). By creating a pivot table,

researchers are able to quickly assess whether codes
pervade across these characteristics or if, in fact, some
codes are absent across key conditions. To create the pivot
table, researchers simply select the characteristic of interest
in the columns field, codes in the rows field and then codes
again for the values. Figure 1a shows an example of how
the raw Excel file can be constructed. As shown in the
example in Figure 1b, the pivot table will return the
number of instances of each code by the characteristic of
interest (in this case firm size). Researchers in this
simplistic example could note that while most of the
emergent themes are consistent across firms of both sizes,
Solid Reputation is present in small firms but not large
firms, while Hands-On Approach is present in large firms
but not small firms. Identifying such inconsistencies can
help researchers recognize discrepancies across characteristics and delve deeper to assess the disparate findings.
Qualitative pivoting has significant potential to be a useful
technique in examining relatively large qualitative examinations; however, it may have limited utility in small
qualitative collections as there may be insufficient codes to
examine across conditions.

Conclusion
The use of grounded theory in sales research is likely to
intensify as the sales domain continues to progress.
Grounded theory will continue to provide theoretical
understanding to nascent and underdeveloped areas in
sales. However, grounded theory in many cases may be a
better approach than the common practice of theory
borrowing from other domains of inquiry to propose
theoretical relationships. Sales/sales management is a very
different context from those in which many borrowed
theories are obtained (psychology, sociology, economics,
etc.). As such, in instances where borrowed theories do
not provide an optimal fit for sales-related phenomena,
grounded theory may be a better choice.
This article endeavours to provide greater understanding of qualitative sales research and, specifically, grounded
theory research designs. Grounded theory provides sales
researchers with a prescribed means for generating theory
as opposed to testing theory as is done most commonly.
By discussing grounded theory, reviewing the application
of grounded theory examinations in sales research, and
advancing substantive and methodological future directions for grounded theory research, this article seeks to

272

J.S. Johnson

stimulate interest in grounded theory sales research as well

as provide a practical resource for sales scholars considering this research design.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank JPSSM Associate Editor Dr. Nick
Lee, the anonymous JPSSM reviewers, Dr. Scott Friend, and
Damien Jones for their helpful support and insightful feedback
on this article.

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

References
Ahearne, Michael. 2013. Manuscript Preparation for Initial
Submission. Accessed December 20, 2013. http://jpssm.org/
submsinf/initial_submission.htm.
Bendapudi, Neeli, and Robert P. Leone. 2002. Managing
Business-to-business Customer Relationships Following
Key Contact Employee Turnover in a Vendor Firm. Journal
of Marketing 66 (2): 83101. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.2.83.
18476.
Beverland, Michael, Marion Steel, and G. Peter Dapiran. 2006.
Cultural Frames That Drive Sales and Marketing Apart:
An Exploratory Study. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing 21 (6): 386394. doi:10.1108/08858620610
690146.
Browne, Kath. 2005. Snowball Sampling: Using Social Networks to Research Non-heterosexual Women. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1): 4760.
doi:10.1080/1364557032000081663.
Bush, Alan J., Victoria D. Bush, Linda M. Orr, and Richard A.
Rocco. 2007. Sales Technology: Help or Hindrance to
Ethical Behaviors and Productivity? Journal of Business
Research 60 (11): 11981205. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.
04.007.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage.
Cicala, John E., Rachel K. Smith, and Alan J. Bush. 2012.
What Makes Sales Presentations EffectiveA Buyer-seller
Perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27
(2): 7888. doi:10.1108/08858621211196958.
Corbin, Juliet M., and Anselm Strauss. 1990. Grounded Theory
Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.
Qualitative Sociology 13 (1): 321. doi:10.1007/BF009
88593.
Creswell, John W. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design:
Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Creswell, John W., and Dana L. Miller. 2000. Determining
Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice 39 (3):
124130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.
De Vos, A. S., H. Strydom, C. B. Fouche, and C. S. L. Delport.
2002. Research at Grassroots: For the Social Sciences and
Human Service Profession. Pretoria: Van Schaik.
Geiger, Susi, and Darach Turley. 2003. Grounded Theory in
Sales Research: An Investigation of Salespeoples Client
Relationships. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
18 (6/7): 580594. doi:10.1108/08858620310492437.
Geiger, Susi, and Darach Turley. 2005. Socializing Behaviors in
Business-to-business Selling: An Exploratory Study from
the Republic of Ireland. Industrial Marketing Management
34 (3): 263273. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.09.006.
Glaser, Barney G. 1992. Emergence vs Forcing: Basics of
Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 2009. The Discovery

of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Piscataway: AldineTransaction.
Grbich, Carol. 2012. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gummesson, Evert. 2003. All Research Is Interpretive! Journal
of Business & Industrial Marketing 18 (6/7): 482492.
doi:10.1108/08858620310492365.
Johlke, Mark C., and Dale F. Duhan. 2001. Testing Competing
Models of Sales Force Communication. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 21 (4): 265277.
Johnson, Jeff S., Scott B. Friend, and Bradley J. Horn. 2014.
Levels of Analysis and Sources of Data in Sales Research:
A Multilevel-multisource Review. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 34 (1): 7086. doi:10.1080/
08853134.2013.870185.
Jones, Eli, Steven P. Brown, Andris A. Zoltners, and Barton A.
Weitz. 2005. The Changing Environment of Selling and
Sales Management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 25 (2): 105111.
Lee, Nick, and John W. Cadogan. 2009. Sales Force Social
Exchange in Problem Resolution Situations. Industrial
Marketing Management 38 (3): 355372. doi:10.1016/j.
indmarman.2008.02.002.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic
Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Malshe, Avinash. 2009. Strategic Sales Organizations: Transformation Challenges and Facilitators within the Salesmarketing Interface. Journal of Strategic Marketing 17 (3/4):
271289. doi:10.1080/09652540903064811.
Malshe, Avinash. 2010. How Is Marketers Credibility Construed within the Sales-marketing Interface? Journal of
Business Research 63 (1): 1319. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.
2009.01.004.
Malshe, Avinash. 2011. An Exploration of Key Connections
within Sales-marketing Interface. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing 26 (1): 4557. doi:10.1108/0885862
1111097201.
Malshe, Avinash, Jamal Al-Khatib, Mohammed Al-Habib, and
Shaza Ezzi. 2012. Exploration of Sales-marketing Interface
Nuances in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Business Research 65
(8): 11191125. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.006.
Malshe, Avinash, and Ravipreet S. Sohi. 2009a. Sales Buy-in of
Marketing Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents, and Contextual Conditions. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management 29 (3): 207225. doi:10.2753/
PSS0885-3134290301.
Malshe, Avinash, and Ravipreet S. Sohi. 2009b. What Makes
Strategy Making across the Sales-marketing Interface More
Successful? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
37 (4): 400421. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-0132-6.
Pryor, Susie, Avinash Malshe, and Kyle Paradise. 2013. Salesperson Listening in the Extended Sales Relationship: An
Exploration of Cognitive, Affective, and Temporal Dimensions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
33 (2): 185196. doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134330203.
Pullins, Ellen Bolman, Michael L. Mallin, Richard E. Buehrer,
and Deirdre E. Jones. 2011. How Salespeople Deal with
Intergenerational Relationship Selling. Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing 26 (6): 443455. doi:10.1108/
08858621111156430.
Rust, Roland T., and Bruce Cooil. 1994. Reliability Measures
for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications. Journal of
Marketing Research 31 (1): 114. doi:10.2307/3151942.
Shipman, Marten D. 1988. The Limitations of Social Research.
London: Longman.

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management

Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 19:12 16 November 2015

Stake, Robert E. 2010. Qualitative Research: Studying How

Things Work. New York: The Guilford Press.
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin. 1990. Basic of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedure and Techniques. London: Sage.
Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliet M. Corbin 1998. Basics of
Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage.
Tanner Jr., John E., Michael Ahearne, Thomas W. Leigh,
Charlotte H. Mason, and William C. Moncrief. 2005. CRM
in Sales-intensive Organizations: A Review and Future
Directions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 25 (2): 169180.
Trainor, Kevin J. 2012. Relating Social Media Technologies to
Performance: A Capabilities-based Perspective. Journal of

273

Personal Selling & Sales Management 32 (3): 317331.

doi:10.2753/PSS0885-3134320303.
Tuli, Kapil R., Ajay K. Kohli, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj. 2007.
Rethinking Customer Solutions: From Product Bundles to
Relational Processes. Journal of Marketing 71 (3): 117.
Turley, Darach, and Susi Geiger. 2006. Exploring Salesperson
Learning in the Client Relationship Nexus. European
Journal of Marketing 40 (5/6): 662681. doi:10.1108/
03090560610657886.
Wagner, Stephan M., Peter Lukassen, and Matthias Mahlendorf.
2010. Misused and Missed UseGrounded Theory and
Objective Hermeneutics as Methods for Research in Industrial Marketing. Industrial Marketing Management 39 (1):
515. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.05.007.