提高销售人员招聘成效外文文献翻译(节选)

1、中文中文 31003100 字，字，14001400 单词，单词，84008400 英文字符英文字符 文文献献出出处处：BrehmerBrehmer A,A, LillyLilly B,B, TippinsTippins MM J. J. ImprovingImproving SalespersonSalesperson Recruitment:Recruitment: ExaminingExamining PracticesPractices ofof ScreeningScreening CandidatesCandidates forfor PotentialPotential Succ

2、essSuccess versusversus PotentialPotential FailureJ. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 2013, 15(1): 29-38.FailureJ. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 2013, 15(1): 29-38. 原文 Improving Salesperson Recruitment: Examining Practices of ScreeningImproving Salesperson Recruitment: Examini

3、ng Practices of Screening Candidates for Potential Success versus Potential FailureCandidates for Potential Success versus Potential Failure Brehmer A, Lilly B, Tippins M J Salesperson recruitment efforts largely target identifying candidates who appear to possess sales success traits. However, succ

4、ess traits may differ from failure traits. Theory and practice both devote low attention to understanding the unsuccessful salesperson, and how to incorporate sales failure into the recruitment process. This paper reports the results of an exploratory study that examines salesperson recruitment, tes

5、ts the notion that recruiters overlook failure issues, and develops variables that should motivate failure probing, which should be useful for theory and practice. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION One of the most important tasks facing sales managers is hiring the right people. Personnel selection receives

6、significant interest in the academic sales literature, with studies examining antecedents and consequences of hiring decisions (e.g., Ganesan, Weitz and John 1993), trends in recruitment practices (e.g., Cron et al. 2005), hiring for contexts that involve international sales efforts (Honeycutt, Ford

7、 and Kurtzman 1996), and individual characteristics that signal potential fit (e.g., Maxwell et al. 2005). Personnel selection also receives attention in practitioner literature, reflected in the Good to Great key finding that getting the right people on the bus is critical (Collins 2001), and in ma

8、nagerially oriented articles that provide experience-based insightsandsuggestionsrelatedtohiring.Theresearchreportedinthis paperinvestigates two intriguing sales recruitment insights reported in a recent practitioner oriented article (HR Chally Group 2007). This project explores and extends the insi

9、ghts in a manner useful to the academic community, furthering the ideas for both theory and practice. Notably, many marketing undergraduate students start their careers in sales, and thus we view the project as having potential benefit to marketing professors who help companies recruit their student

10、s. The two insights examined in this study are stated as mistakes commonly made when hiring salespeople. One mistake was referred to as Using successful people as models, and refers to the notion of hiring people who possess characteristics common to top sales performers, without recognizing that th

11、ese same characteristics may be common among bottom performers. Thus, screening tools used to recruit salespeople may be ineffective because they may identify the wrong top candidates, as these candidates share characteristics of both top and bottom performers. The second mistake was referred to as

12、Not researching the reasons that people fail, and refers to the notion that hiring managers have a biased perspective when hiring, correctly placing effort in understanding what makes salespeople succeed, but failing to ascertain why salespeople have failed. This mistake, which has been studied much

13、 less in the literature as demonstrated in Appendix 1, may lead a hiring manager to recruit a person who is poised to perform well on some aspects of the job, but who is also poised to fail on other aspects of the job. Both mistakes deal with performance failures, and involve neglecting failure issu

14、es in the personnel selection process. Given the insights above, the purpose of this paper is to examine the assertion of these mistakes. We seek to assess the importance of the two common mistakes, and measure the degree to which these problems occur. Further, if the assertions appear to be importa

15、nt and prevalent, then we seek to develop recommendations for research and practice that would lead to corresponding improvements in hiring processes. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We discuss the importance of these issues; why including failure issues in screening may or may

16、not be critical tomanagers hiring salespeople. We then discuss Study 1, which was qualitative, and which led to some validation of the assertions above and development of hypotheses to test quantitatively. We then discuss Study 2, which entailed a survey-based quantitative test, and provided further

17、 validation and resulted in pinpointing very specificareaswheremistakesoccur.Finally,wepresentconclusionsand recommendations. IMPORTANCE OF INCLUDING FAILURE ISSUES IN SCREENING The importance of focusing on failure during a screening process may be questioned for three reasons, each discussed below

18、. Questioning the importance of excluding failure in the screening process is important, because if excluding failure is unimportant, then the exclusion is appropriate rather than mistaken. First, in sales settings are failures rare or low in cost? We consider a failure to be an employee who fails t

19、o achieve minimum work related goals, or who decides to leave the company so the cost of the recruitment effort is insufficiently recovered. If virtually all recruited salespeople were later deemed as non-failures, then spending time identifying potential failures would be wasteful, as their likelih

20、ood of occurring would be very low. Also, if the cost of recruitment is low, then again spending time with failure issues would be wasteful, as a hire that results in failure could be replaced inexpensively with another hire. For this are failures rare or low in cost question, we note research indic

21、ates failure rates in sales positions are high both in absolute sense and relative to other types of positions (Richardson 1999), and that costs of replacing failing employees have long been assessed as high (Rosenberg, Gibson and Epley 1981). Further, we note a company could have an employee they c

22、onsider to be failing and yet retain the employee; in this case the cost is also high, as work related goals are not achieved. Thus, failures in sales settings are not rare, and are costly. Second, does screening candidates for success essentially accomplish the same objective as screening candidate

23、s for potential failure? If so, then failure issues are addressed through efforts that focus on success. In response to this second question,we note success typically isequated to in-role achievements, such as sales productivity. On the other hand, as recognized in the OCB literature, extra-role beh

24、aviors often correlate significantly with managers evaluations of salesperson performance, and yet may not be consciously thought of as success elements (MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Fetter 1993). Thus, performance in some dimensions may distinguish success from lack of success, whereas performance in o

25、ther dimensions may distinguish failure from lack of failure. This notion has been applied frequently in the study of satisfaction with product performance via the Kano model (Vargo et al. 2007), which is analogous to satisfaction with employee performance. Ultimately, we expect a salesperson could

26、be classified as successful in both sales productivity and various extra-role dimensions, classified as successful in sales productivity and yet failed in extra-role dimensions (or vice versa), or may be classified as failed in both sales productivity and extra-role dimensions. In fact, even if a sa

27、lesperson is viewed as succeeding on both sales productivity and extra-role dimensions, a failure could exist because the salesperson decided to leave the company before the company sufficiently recovers the cost of the recruitment effort. Thus, screening for success may focus on a subset of critica

28、l dimensions, insufficiently protecting against hiring a person who ends up failing on other important dimensions. Third, are signals of failure obvious to sales managers, or even potential salespeople? In this case, putting low overt effort into screening for failure would make sense, as screening

29、would occur without much effort or notice. However, research results indicate sales managers often have mistaken impressions of why failures occur among salespeople (Lilly and Porter 2003), and are unable to anticipate who would be the worst salesperson at a rate higher than chance (Emery and Handel

30、l 2007). Further, even salespeople themselves are often uncertain about what factors have contributed to their performance (Dixon, Forbes and Schertzer 2005), and we expect signals of failure would be even less obviousto potential salespeople. Thus, we conclude that failure signals are not simply ob

31、vious, and that effortful screeningfor failure is important. Based on the issues above, our overall assessment is that: 1) salesperson failure is costly and frequent, 2) screening for potential success may insufficiently guard against hiring a person who fails, and 3) effort spent screening for fail

32、ure is likely to be helpful, as causes of failure are often non-obvious. To some extent, the oft-repeated adage from Winston Churchill applies, specifically that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. In the context of salesperson recruitment, some inclusion of failure in the scree

33、ning process seems very important. STUDY 1: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT We had four primary objectives for Study-1 which parallel four questions. First, from the perspective of professionals involved in salesperson recruitment, do recruitment efforts generally lack a component of looking for issues that

34、signal potential failure? Second, if recruitment efforts really do omit efforts to probe for potential failure, do practitioners view the omission as a case of failure being overlooked, or is the omission intended for reasons beyond the three issues discussed above? Third, are post-mortems commonly

35、conducted after salesperson failures occur, in a manner where resulting knowledge could be easily used in subsequent recruitment efforts? And fourth, what factors do recruiters feel should logically motivate the amount of effort they spend when probing for potential failure? 译文 提高销售人员招聘成效：甄选出潜在成功和潜在

36、失败的提高销售人员招聘成效：甄选出潜在成功和潜在失败的 候选人的实践研究候选人的实践研究 亚历山德拉布雷默；布莱恩莉莉；迈克尔蒂平斯 关于销售人员的招聘工作，其主要目标就是识别出销售岗位候选人中谁最 可能拥有“成功营销员的特质”。 然而， 这种成功的特质可能不同于失败的特质。 当前的理论和实践研究都很少会去关注和了解那些不成功的销售人员， 以及很少 会去如何将销售上的失败问题也纳入到招聘过程中。本文即是一个探索性研究， 主要研究销售人员的招聘过程，检查招聘人员“忽视”招聘失败的问题，以及激 励大家对失败问题进行探索， 本文的研究对以后的理论和实践研究应该是有所助 益的。 引言引言 销售经理面临

37、的最重要的任务之一就是招到合适的销售人员。 人员选择的标 准主要是看应聘人员在销售方面的学术研究情况、是否有过销售的经历等，根据 候选人以往的工作经历来判断他们是否能够胜任工作，并以此来做出雇佣决策。 （加内桑，韦茨和约翰.1993），招聘实践的动向（科隆等人.2005），招聘有国 际化营销背景的人（霍尼卡特、福特和库兹曼.1996 年），以及潜在的健康等个 人特点（麦克斯韦等人.2005)。人员选拔也关注从业者的学识水平，这主要体现 在从优秀到卓越的跨越，学识高也分层次，有优秀及卓越之分，要尽量选择卓越 的员工，“让合适的人留在公共汽车上”是至关重要的（柯林斯.2001)，前人所 写的管理类

38、文献，为我们提供了基于经验与招聘的相关建议。本文的研究，探讨 了两个关于销售人员招聘的有趣观点（人力资源 Chally 集团 2007）。本文就探 索和扩展了这两个观点，它们对本课题的学术研究是很有用的，进一步拓展了理 论和实践研究的深度。 值得注意的是， 许多市场营销专业毕业的本科生都选择从 事销售工作，将销售岗位作为自己职业生涯的开端，因此，我们认为本文的研究 对教市场营销专业的教授具有潜在的好处， 能够帮助大学教授们更好地为企业培 养出他们想要招募的员工。 本文的研究的这两个观点在招聘销售人员的实际操作中， 通常会被误解。一 个误解是所谓的“以成功的员工作为标杆模型”， 这主要是指成功的

39、精英营销人 才所具备的共同特征， 这种看法显然没有认识到这些所谓的共同特征有可能是底 层营销人员所具备的。因此，用于招聘营销人员的筛选工具很可能是无效的，因 为他们可能无法识别出谁才是真正的“顶级”营销精英候选人， 因为这些候选人 可能都同时具备营销精英和一般营销人员的特征。 第二个误解就是所谓的“不去 研究销售人员失败的原因”， 这主要是指招聘经理在招聘时有一个观念上的偏差， 把精力集中放在研究是什么让销售人员成功上， 但是不去研究销售人员为什么失 败。这个误解，在以往的研究中很少会被关注，如附录1 所示，这可能会导致招 聘经理会招聘到一个在某些方面表现很好的人， 但这个人也可能会在工作的其

40、他 方面做的不好。 这两个误解都将会导致销售失败，并且将会导致忽视人员甑选过 程中的失败问题。 鉴于上述观点， 本文的目的就是研究这些错误的论断。我们寻求对这两个常 见误解的重要性进行评估，并测量这些问题引发的后果。然后，我们寻求为后续 的研究和实践提出建议， 这将能够改进相应的招聘流程。 本文的其余部分主要是： 我们探讨了这些问题的重要性；在招聘员工时， 为什么研究失败问题在甄选营销 人员时也是至关重要的。我们然后探讨了研究 1，这是一个定性分析，将验证我 们之前的一些断言和假设。接着我们探讨了研究 2，这是一个个案定量分析，并 将提供进一步的验证。最后，我们提出了结论和相关建议。 把甄选失

41、败问题纳入招聘过程的重要性把甄选失败问题纳入招聘过程的重要性 关注筛选过程中失败问题的重要性可能会因为三个原因而遭受到质疑， 下面 将分别讨论这三个原因。质疑把甄选失败问题纳入招聘过程的重要性，这本身就 很重要。 首先， 是因为销售操作上的失败很少， 还是因为招聘成本不高？我们认为失 败是由于一个员工未能达到最低的工作目标，或者是由于员工决定离开公司，造 成招聘成本上的投入没能够收回。 但如果几乎所有招募到的销售人员都被视为非 失败员工，那么去花费时间识别潜在的失败将会是会是一种浪费。同样，如果招 聘的成本很低， 然后再花时间去检查失败问题也会是一种浪费。对于这种“几乎 无失败或低的招聘成本”问题，我们注意到，研究表明销售岗位上的失败率与其 他岗位相比，都是相对很高的，（理查森.1999），并且重新换人，造成的成本 也一直相当高(罗森博格、吉布森和爱普雷.1981)。另外，我们注意到一个公司 可能存在这样的一种员工，即公司认为他们是失败的销售人员，但是仍然保留了 这些雇员；这种情况也会导致很高的成本，同时，相关工作目标也没有达到。因 此，从这方面来说，销售上的失败并不是罕见的，且是昂贵的