Developing a Stakeholder Approach for Recruiting Top-Level Sales ...

Download PDF
3 downloads 62 Views 331KB Size Report
Comment
The demand for students with a sales education is well docu- mented. Some statistics place the odds of taking a sales job on graduation at approximately 80% ...
522039 research-article2014

JMDXXX10.1177/0273475314522039Journal of Marketing EducationAgnihotri et al.

Article

Developing a Stakeholder Approach for Recruiting Top-Level Sales Students

Journal of Marketing Education 2014, Vol. 36(1) 75­–86 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0273475314522039 jmed.sagepub.com

Raj Agnihotri1, Leff Bonney2, Andrea Leigh Dixon3, Robert Erffmeyer4, Ellen Bolman Pullins5, Jane Z. Sojka6, and Vicki West7

Abstract With growing industry demand for sales professionals, recruitment at colleges and universities that have a sales education focus has increased remarkably over the past few years. However, results indicate that hiring organizations face an uphill task in filling sales positions. Recruiters and students struggle to build critical person–job fit during a relatively brief period of interaction. To address these issues, the present article presents a two-staged ideal recruitment process based on a stakeholder perspective. A set of 16 propositions is provided for improving key outcomes of the sales student recruitment process. Keywords placement issues, sales management/sales, undergraduate education, institutes/centers The demand for students with a sales education is well documented. Some statistics place the odds of taking a sales job on graduation at approximately 80% for all marketing majors (Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, 2011). Other statistics suggest that as much as 60% of all business students will take a job with at least some sales-related duties after graduation. The competition among organizations to hire talent directly from today’s university and college campuses is intense. Fogel, Hoffmeister, Rocco, and Strunk (2012) note that “according to the U.S. Department of Labor, companies will lose 40% of senior talent by 2016” (p. 97), including a significant portion of salespeople. This “hyper-competition” for students has created a “noisy” recruiting environment that students must navigate in route to selecting a post–graduation job. Many students thus find it difficult to select the right company and sales position that best meet their needs (Weilbaker & Williams, 2006). The concept of “person–job fit” figures significantly as a desired end for both student applicant and employer in the recruitment process. Person-job fit refers to “the congruence of applicants’ needs, goals, and values with organizational norms, values, and reward systems” (Werbel & Gilliland, 1999, p. 217). The literature on person–job fit finds that congruency between job characteristics and employee desires have major implications for early career success and can influence attitudes toward the university that prepared the students for their careers (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Singh & Greenhaus, 2004). In turn, a strong person–job fit achieved through an effective recruitment process can increase the probability of short- and long-term benefits for both jobholder and the organization.

College students often have difficulty identifying important differences between recruiting companies regarding their perceived needs and wants in their first employer. This difficulty stems partly from students’ limited contact with companies seeking new employees and insufficient information that students have about the job and organizational characteristics when they make the job choice decision (Dipboye, 1992; Rynes, 1989). In addition, college students likely interview with at least several companies with varied job responsibilities, and they may have trouble differentiating among jobs (Turban & Dougherty, 1992). The stakes are high for all. Students (and their parents) perceive that their “first job” reflects the value of their educational investment. For employers, the average cost for recruiting a collegiate hire is approximately $5,054, and costs are greater for positions in more demand (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2011). Importantly, collegiate hires from sales education programs reach the financial breakeven point in their territories 30% faster than do untrained sales professionals, and their tenure with the 1

Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA 3 Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA 4 University of Wisconsin, Eau-Claire, WI, USA 5 University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA 6 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA 7 Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Leff Bonney, Florida State University, 821 Academic Way, FSU College of Business, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. Email: [email protected]

76 company is about 40% longer (Fogel et al., 2012). As the liaisons between these two stakeholder groups, faculty and staff play a key role in training students and brokering successful student placement, both of which are a central part of the university’s academic mission (Peltier, Cummins, Pomirleanu, Cross, & Simmon, 2014). Sales educators and their colleges and universities have an interest in career placement acceptances as well. Student perceptions of placement can help drive institutional rankings (Morgeson & Nahrgang, 2008). Colleges and universities also use placement rates and recruiter experiences in their own higher education marketing efforts. Institutions benefit from their graduates’ success in terms of improved alumni donations and support. Additional financial support also comes from recruiter companies and advisory board members in the form of sponsorships, scholarships, and other external resources. It is thus in the best interest of university faculty and staff to create high levels of person–job fit for their sales graduates. Faculty play an important role in helping students prepare for a career in sales (Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003; Comm & LaBay, 1997; Posner, 1981). The role of sales faculty has expanded substantially over the past few years with duties that include sales competition coach, solicitor of sales program sponsors, organizer of career events, and perhaps, most important, guidance counselor. Consequently, a sales faculty member spends an increasing amount of time working as a “go-between” who advises company recruiters and helps students wade through the process of choosing a company to work for on graduation. Despite the importance of the role that sales faculty assume in student career development, little has been written about the topic in marketing education journals (Cummins, Peltier, Erffmeyer, & Whalen, 2013). The purpose of the present article is to develop theoretical and practical guidance for sales faculty who advise students on company choices and for recruiters on how best to appeal to students. Using stakeholder theory, the article draws on the extant literature on employee recruitment to develop a set of testable research propositions for aligning students’ skills and desires with the characteristics of the companies seeking to hire them. In sum, the article is a response to Gray, Peltier, and Schibrowsky’s (2012) call for research that expands our understanding of how to align the career development needs of students with the needs of employer recruiters. Before presenting the propositions, the article presents a brief review of the career development research in the sales and marketing education literature.

Literature Review Career development is an area ripe for additional research in the marketing education domain. Only 3.7% of the articles published in the Journal of Marketing Education between

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1) 1979 and 2012 focus on student needs in the career development process (Gray et al., 2012). Approximately 22 articles relating to student career development have appeared in the Journal of Marketing Education, Marketing Education Review, Journal of Education for Business, and Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management since the journals’ inception. Specific to sales education and following the classification scheme of Cummins et al. (2013), sales articles have dealt with one of two substantive areas: preparation for a sales career and change in perception about sales careers. Most articles on sales career preparation have focused on the skills and knowledge required for success in a sales career (Raymond, Carlson, & Hopkins, 2006). Other articles have focused on the effect that sales training has on student performance after graduation. For example, Weilbaker and Williams (2006) assert that sales training in undergraduate business programs provides a “number of benefits in terms of job opportunities and placement, starting salaries, training-to-job cycle time, and promotability” (p. 32). Other articles investigated the effect that sales training has on more traditional measures of performance. Leasher and Moberg (2008) found that students who received significant sales training in their undergraduate business programs ramped up more quickly than their peers based on self-reported measures of first-year performance. Based on this research stream, a better understanding of student–firm fit regarding student’s knowledge and proclivity for professional selling offers a theoretical mechanism for assisting their career development and employer evaluation process (Floyd & Gordon, 1998; Karakaya, Quigley, & Bingham, 2011). The second significant area of career development in the sales education research is the effect that sales education has on student perceptions of a sales career. These articles represent the bulk of career development research in the sales education literature. Several studies have demonstrated support for the notion that sales education positively affects a student’s perception about a career in sales (Bristow, Gulati, & Amyx, 2006; Karakaya et al., 2011). Similarly, students who lack exposure to the intricacies of personal selling are more likely to maintain low opinions of sales careers (Dubinsky, 1980; Swenson, Swinyard, Langehr, & Smith, 1993). More recently, Peltier et al. (2014) created and validated a parsimonious scale for predicting students’ likelihood of taking a sales position. They found that sales faculty and employers play an important role in increasing student interest in sales vis-à-vis students’ exposure to education interventions. Despite the research on preparing students for a sales career by instilling applicable knowledge and skills via sales education and on the perceptual changes that this education sparks in students, a glaring void remains that warrants investigation. Most research has focused on intent to pursue a career in sales but has not addressed “pedagogical guidance or study of how students choose among various types of sales career paths” (Cummins et al., 2013, p. 73). More

77

Agnihotri et al.

opportunities that appeal to their needs and wants; faculty/ recruiters want to make the opportunities appealing to individual students. Therefore, a set of propositions is presented that relate to the drivers of a student’s attraction to sales job opportunities. Last, students and employers both want high levels of person–job fit. Therefore, propositions are presented concerning critical faculty activities that will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates.

Proposition Development Creating Awareness Figure 1.  Stakeholders in the college recruitment process.

specifically, career development research should begin to specifically address the effect that sales education, and more importantly sales faculty, have on a student’s choice of a specific employer after graduation. As aforementioned, such is a critical step in the career development process due to the impact that person-job fit can have on early career success. A set of propositions was developed to begin to address this missing link in the career development area of sales education literature. Drawing on stakeholder theory, the article provides the rationale for how faculty influence this important decision by interacting with two relevant stakeholders— students and employers. The propositions are organized around two key job search stages (Collins & Stevens, 2002): (a) awareness of specific sales jobs in the student population and (b) active recruitment of individual students. Building on relevant literature (e.g., Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Wilkie & Moore, 1999), Lusch (2007) posits that “more attention to stakeholder theory must be central to marketing scholarship” (p. 266). The marketing education system must adopt this view as the system has stakeholders with overlapping interests, especially regarding the recruitment process. A research agenda based on the stakeholder viewpoint begins with identifying key stakeholders within the system in question (Freeman, 1984); in this case the key stakeholders are faculty, students, and employers (Figure 1). Stakeholders’ common needs and wants are identified so that value propositions for all stakeholders can be developed, which will enhance relationships and secure future benefits (Frow & Payne, 2011; Payne, Ballantyne, & Christopher, 2005). The propositions are presented based on three key recruitment objectives shared by faculty, students, and recruiters. First, students want to learn about potential opportunities available to them, and faculty and employers want to provide information about these opportunities. Therefore, propositions have been developed involving the drivers of student awareness of job opportunities. Second, students seek

Creating strong employer brands requires that company representatives clearly understand the interests, needs, and desires of their target audience—students seeking a sales position. As students begin to search for viable employment options, corporate recruiters and faculty seek to increase a large pool of the “right” students by making students aware of specific opportunities. The literature on employer branding has long asserted that companies should create brand awareness among job applicants in much the same way that traditional marketing creates brand equity among potential customers (Mandhanya & Shah, 2010). It is proposed that the firm’s branding and segmentation efforts are critical to ensure that students are aware of the firm’s opportunity given the large amount of “noise” that students encounter in the recruitment process. Key drivers of student awareness of a company’s opportunity are addressed in the following sections. Branding Efforts: Focus on Intangibles Associated With Potential Jobs.  Several recent studies have examined the importance of job characteristics regarding student awareness and decision-making (Florida State University Annual Sales Student Survey 2012; University Sales Center Alliance [USCA] Survey of Sales Students 2012). These studies found that among several employer benefits, students pursuing sales positions were most interested in advancement opportunities. Four of the top five areas of interest to students included advancement opportunities, company financial stability, job security, and “fit with my goals.” The only tangible benefit in the top five is salary, ranked third among these five factors, indicating that compensation, while important, is not the most important factor. Other research conducted before the 2008 recession reinforces interest in intangibles such as fit with career goals and future opportunities in the organization (Raymond et al., 2006). Unfortunately, firms and sales recruiters frequently place relatively greater emphasis on earning potential and tangible aspects of the sales positions in their employer branding efforts (e.g., one company’s career fair banner states, “Earn $45,000 base pay”). Therefore, faculty should encourage sales recruiters to rethink the importance of intangibles in their company branding.

78

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1)

Table 1.  Summary of Student-Related Propositions. Creating awareness in the student population

Active recruitment of individual students

Proposition 1: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that feature branding messages focusing on (a) intangible aspects of the sales positions, (b) the selectiveness of the hiring process, and (c) the ethics and social responsibility of the employer. Proposition 2: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that alter branding messages for specific segments that exist in the student population. Proposition 3: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that (a) include frontline employees in employer brand message development and (b) involve peer groups similar to sales students being recruited (alumni, group interviews) in the recruiting process so that students gain a more realistic perspective on a potential job. Proposition 4: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies when positions are publicized through sales program, college of business, and university announcements. Proposition 5: Students will have a higher awareness of a sales position with companies that developed a connection with student opinion leaders who are likely to inform peer students’ about potential job opportunities. Proposition 8: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that communicate via networks of (a) alumni-employees, (b) faculty and staff, and (c) parents, mentors, and friends of prospective hires during the recruitment process. Proposition 10: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that offer internships to sales students. Proposition 11: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that have shown (a) a genuine interest in sales students and (b) a professional and positive attitude. Proposition 12: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that use in-person communication during the sales-student recruitment process. Proposition 15: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that expose the student to a broad perspective of the company through ride-alongs with sales reps, visits to corporate headquarters, and interactions with a wide range of company personnel.

Branding Efforts: Tout Selective Opportunity.  Employer brands are accentuated when firms’ messages suggest that they are selective in the hiring process (e.g., “We are only seeking A-players for our team”; Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Awareness and recall of employer messages appear to be stronger when employers stress specific activities experienced in the job over general corporate information or contextual factors such as salary and benefits (Feldman, Bearden, & Hardesty, 2006). Integrating across the literature, faculty should coach employers to emphasize selectivity, as well as specific job activities and the skills needed to excel in these positions. Branding Efforts: Emphasize Corporate Ethics.  Corporate ethics may play a role in a student’s awareness of a specific job opportunity (Wiles & Spiro, 2004). The emphasis on corporate ethics may be especially pronounced for sales students due to unethical sales stereotypes that continue to tarnish the sales profession. As faith and religion may be important student values (Dixon & Adamson, 2012), sales faculty should

advise recruiters to emphasize their organization’s commitment to social responsibility and ethical business practices as they build their brands among sales students. Based on the previous discussion, the proposition to improve the process is as follows (see Table 1): Proposition 1: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that feature branding messages focusing on (a) intangible aspects of the sales positions, (b) the selectiveness of the hiring process, and (c) the ethics and social responsibility of the employer. Segments of Students Exist in the College of Business Applicant Pool.  Exploratory research suggests that student subgroups represent segments that should shape employer messaging (Dixon & Adamson, 2012). For example, when asked to rate various aspects of interest in sales jobs, juniors placed salary and benefits higher than did seniors, and they were more

79

Agnihotri et al. likely to feel that commission-oriented sales jobs are too risky, and rejection makes sales jobs daunting. In contrast, seniors were much more likely to accept a sales job (66%) compared to juniors (52%). These findings suggest that faculty should work to understand how these segments differ so that they can help recruiters tailor messages to different student segments in employer branding efforts. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 2: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that alter branding messages for specific segments that exist in the student population. The Impact of Frontline Employees in Branding Efforts.  The normative guideline for faculty is to advise recruiters to include frontline employees in the development of employer brand messages as the best way to create consistency between intended brand perceptions and outsider experiences with employees (Edwards, 2010). Frontline employees should not be ignored in the awareness-building process. These employees are best able to provide company management with insights about the appealing aspects of the job so that appropriate messages can be developed. These frontline employees can act as “translators” in conveying opportunity information to students in terms that they easily understand. Similarly, students find it helpful to know of other peers in sales positions with the company. The recruiter’s use of alumni, student friends, and group interviews where students can see sales students similar to themselves, all enhance student awareness of the company’s job opportunity (Pettijohn & Pettijohn, 2009). Relationships within the awareness building process are important to attracting sales students. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 3: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies that (a) include frontline employees in employer brand message development and (b) involve peer groups similar to sales students being recruited (alumni, group interviews) in the recruiting process so that students gain a more realistic perspective about a potential job. The Role of Publicity in Building Awareness.  Very little research exists concerning the role of faculty and other university personnel in helping to build a strong employer brand on campus. However, two studies in the employer branding literature provide normative insights for companies seeking to build awareness among sales students. Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, and Jones (2005) found that the frequency of interactions between faculty and company representatives had a major effect on job awareness among college students. This increased awareness is the result of faculty having a basic understanding of the company so they can relay

information about the company’s job opportunities to the broader student population. Specifically, research found that awareness improves when faculty provide their insights about specific company opportunities to their students. For example, Newberry and Collins (2012) found that publicity was an influential contributor to awareness, more so than direct advertisements. Being featured in sales or college of business newsletters or mentioned in classroom environments was especially effective in employer branding efforts. Sponsorships alone did very little to increase student awareness, but the interaction between sponsorships and publicity had a large effect (Newberry & Collins, 2012). In sum, it is not enough for a company to sponsor sales-related activities; student awareness is achieved when faculty interact with company personnel and publicize the company’s involvement to the student population. This is an important message for faculty to convey to employers who believe that sponsoring a sales program is sufficient to drive top sales talent to interview with their respective firms. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 4: Students will have a higher awareness of specific sales opportunities with companies when positions are publicized through the sales program, college of business, and university announcements. Role of the “Student Maven” for Creating Awareness. Among the student ranks, there is evidence of a student leader or peer-opinion leader who strives to influence others (cf. Feick & Price, 1987). Every sales program has several such market mavens—students who gather information from a variety of sources and are able to inform other students’ about potential job opportunities. Interestingly, research in consumer marketing suggests that opinion leaders making connections through social media create a longer carryover effect than do traditional marketing activities (cf. Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009). With faculty help, employers can also identify and leverage such opinion leaders for their on-campus recruiting through targeted social media outlets and sales program websites (Forbes & Vespoli, 2013). Therefore (Table1): Proposition 5: Students will have a higher awareness of a sales position with companies that develop a connection with student opinion leaders who are likely to inform peer students’ about potential job opportunities.

Active Recruitment of Individual Students The second stage of recruitment focuses on “deepening connections” between students and recruiters (employers) to further enhance job opportunity attractiveness (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004; Berthon, Ewing, & Hah, 2005). While job choice occurs over a series of decision-making stages, the

80

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1)

Table 2.  Summary of Faculty-Related Propositions. Active recruitment of individual students

Proposition 6: Sales faculty that monitor individual student/recruiter interactions in the recruitment process will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 7: Sales faculty that work closely with program sponsors to gain a deep understanding of their specific position will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 9: Sales faculty that work directly with companies in creating sales specific internships will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 13: Sales faculty that promote student–recruiter interactions through unique, sales-specific events will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 14: Faculty that encourage students to take advantage every opportunity to evaluate the firm through a wide range of activities will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 16: Sales faculty that actively work with other departments to build and provide good sales-related career support will increase person–job fit in sales program graduates.

final stage of job choice requires the student to evaluate the relative overall attractiveness of individual opportunities (Barber, 1998). Job attributes such as the nature of the work, advancement opportunities, work location, and the industry appear to substantially affect job acceptance decisions (Taylor & Bergmann, 1987). Additional empirical evidence indicates that what happens during the recruiting process does matter (Rynes & Barber, 1990). Sales faculty can begin to substantially affect person–job fit as they work with individual students who are interviewing with specific companies. Therefore, the propositions in this section focus on drivers of student attraction to specific jobs and person–job fit. Role of Student–Faculty and Faculty–Recruiter Relationships. As aforementioned, faculty play an important role as opinion leaders for individual students and as advisers for recruiters. This is especially important in the recruiting stage when students and recruiters begin to narrow down their respective choices. Students rely on faculty for information about viable job opportunities. Whether due to misconceptions about the sales profession, negative perceptions about sales positions, or distrust of other impersonal communication methods, students look to faculty for advice and assurance when selecting a starting sales position (Pettijohn & Pettijohn, 2009). Faculty endorsement either via an overt recommendation or a more subtle endorsement of a class speaker creates a positive image for the company recruiter. Interactions with recruiters in the classroom provide students with another corporate “touch point” to evaluate the company. Sales faculty should work individually with students to understand their specific needs and wants from a future employer so that they can better serve as coaches during the recruitment process. Finally, faculty should interact frequently with students throughout the process to ensure that students objectively evaluate opportunities based on their needs and wants discussed earlier in the process.

Simultaneously, sales faculty members can provide recruiters with information about and access to top sales students. Recruiters rely on faculty evaluations of sales students’ current and potential performance. Sales faculty can assist recruiters by identifying students with the specific strengths and backgrounds that make them good candidates for the recruiter’s organization. Faculty members who know their students’ strengths provide a valuable informational source for recruiters. Companies would be advised to build relationships with sales faculty members to gain endorsements, student insights, and possibly opportunities for inclass and out-of-class exposure to students. As aforementioned, the sales faculty’s basic understanding of a company’s job opportunity is important in building awareness about the opportunity. However, it is insufficient to drive person–job fit. To be helpful in their role as a person–job fit coach for both students and recruiters, faculty must develop a deeper understanding of companies’ available opportunities. We have attended company national sales meetings, spent a day in the field with sales representatives, and interviewed customers, all in an effort to gain a better perspective about company opportunities. Therefore (see Table 2): Proposition 6: Sales faculty that monitor individual student/recruiter interactions in the recruitment process will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 7: Sales faculty that work closely with program sponsors to gain a deep understanding of their specific positions will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Role of Connection Strategies. As students prepare for their college-to-career transition, they connect with a variety of people for advice: parents, faculty, family friends, college friends, alumni, mentors, and even parents of college friends. Connecting with the broad network of student influencers

Agnihotri et al. can be problematic for employers and college faculty alike. Meszaros, Creamer, and Lee (2009) assert, “Career choice can be seen as an example of an ill-structured problem, for which there are conflicting assumptions, evidence and opinions, which may lead to different solutions” (p. 393). The issue becomes even more challenging for students as multiple people attempt to influence the student’s process and outcome. Anecdotal data suggest that the messages from these opinion leaders are likely to conflict. Students turning to faculty and staff for career advice is not the same as going to friends. In fact, one might argue that these relationships are akin to what Price and Arnould (1999) call commercial friendships. Since proximity affects the formation of commercial friendships, employers and recruiters should identify the faculty who teach the core courses in the sales programs as they are in closest proximity to sales students. However, our experience is that most corporate recruiters do little to expand their faculty relationships beyond the main university career center contact. Employers recruiting at a specific university typically employ people who are university alumni. While these alumni may not “know” the current sales students, their opinions are weighted more heavily by sales students due to perceived homophily (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Consequently, employers who leverage alumniemployees in their recruitment of individual students are likely to create a stronger impact as such similar connections (between alumni and current students) are more powerful than nonhomophilous connections. As a prospective student hire moves deeper into the interview process, employers should focus their opinion leader strategies on strong ties, such as parents, close friends, and mentors. When engaging with prospective hires, employers could gather influencer contact information in the recruitment process. Asking for the students’ permanent address on the job application is an easy way to have contact with the prospective hire’s parents. Asking a prospective hire to list his/her mentor and closest friend as possible references on the application form can be useful. The employer’s recruiting process could include postinterview contact with these important influencers, indicating that “NAME just interviewed with COMPANY and SHE/HE indicated on HIS/ HER application that you are a MENTOR/FRIEND. We look forward to contacting you to discuss NAME’s capabilities and strengths as we move through the hiring process.” By proactively contacting the mentors and friends, the employer starts to bring these opinion leaders into the recruitment process. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 8: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that communicate via networks of (a) alumni-employees, (b) faculty and staff, and (c) parents, mentors, and friends of prospective hires during the interview process.

81 Role of Sales Internships for Deepening Connections. Developing internship programs is a significant decision, affecting faculty time, departmental resources, and greater responsibility for all parties involved (Divine, Miller, Wilson, & Linrud, 2008). Internship activities build relationships with employers and improve students’ career choices. Approximately 90% of colleges offer students some type of for-credit internship or work-related learning experience (Cook, Parker, & Pettijohn, 2000; Gault, Redington, & Schlager, 2000; Inks & Avila, 2008; Knouse, Tanner, & Harris, 1999). Similarly, the Sales Education Foundation (SalesFoundation. org) reports that a large number of sales programs offer an internship component in their sales programs. Internships create opportunity attraction for students in three ways. First, programs give interns the opportunity to see the day-to-day requirements of the job first hand. Students have the opportunity to evaluate any differences between employer branding messages and the actual experience of working for the company, which has also been shown to be a key driver of person–job fit (Moroko & Uncles, 2008). Second, internships allow recruiters and students to connect much earlier in the recruitment process, which increases the number of interactions between students and company personnel. Finally, internships create peer-level information sources for students who did not participate in a company’s internship program before being recruited. Ultimately, recruiters should know that the “truth” about a job experience always finds its way back to students. If the promises made in the branding efforts don’t match reality, student perception of the opportunity will be damaged. This fact leads to the importance of faculty involvement in internship administration. As recently as 10 years ago, notable Fortune 500 companies did not have sales-specific internships, although that situation is rapidly changing. As the positive impact of a professional sales education becomes more widely recognized, internships specific to the professional selling field can increase to meet demand. Sales faculty members can be instrumental in the development of these internships, adding value to student–job fit outcomes. Specifically, faculty can affect the value and quality of internships by ensuring that the internship requirements align with students’ expectations of sales jobs that are developed during sales education. Faculty can also relay important feedback to the company as students often provide the “real story” of internship quality to their individual sales instructors. Therefore (Tables 1 and 2): Proposition 9: Sales faculty that work directly with companies in creating sales specific internships will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 10: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that offer internships to sales students.

82 Role of Personal Relationships With the Recruiters and Peer Groups in the Company.  The recruiter’s friendly personality and ability to build a relationship with the sales student influences the student’s decision to pursue a potential company. Sales students prefer personal face-to-face contact with recruiters (Dixon & Adamson, 2012). Assuming the company has established brand awareness, the recruiter becomes the first contact and “face” of the company. A positive first experience with a recruiter makes a positive first impression of the company. In addition, the recruiter’s demonstrated personal interest in the sales student offers a compelling motivation to keep a company in the evoked set of possible jobs (Wiles & Spiro, 2004). Companies need to be advised on the importance of relationship-building “soft skills” and sending strong relationship-building recruiters to college campuses. Even in the digital age, students indicate their preference for personal communication over other, less personal, forms of communication such as phone or the Internet (Dixon & Adamson, 2012). Students are attracted to recruiters whom they perceive are similar to themselves in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity (Pinar & Hardin, 2005). This presents an interesting challenge for mature “Baby Boomer” recruiters trying to attract young employees. Should the recruiter position himself/herself closer to the student (e.g., “I’m like you”) or closer to the business professional (e.g., “I can be your role model”). Our experience suggests that most recruiters take the “I’m like you” position and engage in casual behavior (including drinking) with students. Student conversations about recruiter behavior suggest that recruiter behavior may deepen connections with some students while creating distance with others. Increasing the void created between some students and the recruiter is a perceived lack-of-professionalism due to such casual encounters. Faculty should caution recruiters against making the frequent mistake of “over-relating” to today’s students. With this in mind, it is imperative that recruiters prepare for the initial student interaction; preparation helps the recruiter present a positive image. One way to present a positive first impression is to emphasize unique aspects of a sales position that students may not necessarily associate with sales: a creative job environment, task variety, interactions with different types of people, and travel opportunities (Pettijohn & Pettijohn, 2009). Recruiters should also be coached on delivering a “positive candidate experience” (Graham-Leviss, 2012; Wiles & Spiro, 2004). Overall, recruiters need to build relationships with the students they want to attract and take a genuine interest in the student’s welfare while maintaining professional behavior during student interactions. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 11: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1) demonstrate (a) a genuine interest in sales students and (b) a professional and positive attitude. Role of Contact Strategies.  The Recruiting Trends 2012 study (Collegiate Employment Research Institute, 2013) reports that nearly two thirds of college recruiters were involved in internship programs and careers fairs. Following these campus-oriented activities were information sessions (reportedly used by 47% of college recruiters) often hosted by alums, faculty connections (41%), and on-campus interviewing (37%). On-campus interviewing has been declining primarily due to higher organizational costs. The use of social media and Internet resources for recruiting, used by 35% of responding organizations, is increasing and based on respondent input is expected to continue to do so. But are these forms of recruitment ideal for landing top student talent? Finding efficient and effective methods to improve student connections is critically important to employers. Robinson and Stubbberud (2012) found that modes of communication used by university students for social purposes were not necessarily those preferred for school/work activities. Face-to-face (F2F) communication was most preferred in both situations. In the school/work realm, F2F was followed in preference order by email, phone, chat, and SMS texting, and on-paper and Facebook (both asynchronous methods). When in social situations, face-to-face communication was followed in preference order by phone, SMS texting, Facebook, and chat. Email and paper methods were least preferred. These findings suggest that students value synchronous communication, where interaction is done simultaneously, as opposed to asynchronous communication associated with some social media sites. Focusing on students in sales programs, Dixon and Adamson (2012) report that not all communication channels are valued equally. When sales students are learning about the company in general, they prefer channels offering greater control, such as company websites and videos, over channels offering less control (social media). Sales students exhibit strong preferences concerning communications about specific job opportunities and employment offers. For discussions regarding initial employment, respondents prefer individualized channels over social media. The most preferred channels were phone contacts followed in preference order by emails, professors, LikedIn, mail, text messages, Facebook, and Twitter (Dixon & Adamson, 2012). Swanson and Tomkovick (2012) found a distinct “disconnect between students and employers” concerning student preferences for communication types. Of particular concern, students overwhelmingly preferred in-person communication when interacting with recruiters, whereas employers predicted that students would prefer e-mail and social media. Faculty should also make students aware of recruiter communication preferences and coach students on how to properly use all

Agnihotri et al. forms of communication during the recruitment process. Therefore (Table 1): Proposition 12: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that use inperson communication during the sales-student recruitment process. Role of Career-Related Events. Employers who are highly engaged with educational sales programs rely on specialized events to help meet their hiring needs. In addition to career fairs, popular sales-specific campus events include internal competitions, Interview Express, industry days, sales banquets, golf outings, and so on. Specialized events offer employers access to students specifically interested in professional selling as a career. Employers prefer to attract students who create value for their firms and are genuinely interested in a sales role. The search for qualified interns and full-time employees can yield greater results and long-term success through such targeted activities. Given student preferences for face-to-face communication, specialized career events are a natural choice. These events introduce students to the brand image of a company and deepen personal connections with employers. Universities with active sales centers have been building specialized events with great success. Students are provided exposure to partner companies via events, often with the opportunity to interview immediately after an event, speeding up the recruitment process. Innovative and engaging campus activities, such as hosting problem-solving competitions or life-skills seminars, can be used to emphasize the skills needed for sales success and the professionalism that sales positions require (Pettijohn & Pettijohn, 2009). Ultimately, students can learn more about a company’s culture, expectations, and leadership style among frontline sales managers in more transparent discussions beyond those of a typical information session. Therefore (Table 2): Proposition 13: Sales faculty who promote student– recruiter interactions through unique, sales-specific events will increase person–job fit for sales program graduates. Strengthening Candidate Commitment Through a Wide Exposure to the Firm. Boswell et al. (2003) interviewed 109 graduating students (from varied disciplines and four universities) engaged at various stages of the job search process. They found that the ability to meet with multiple people (executives, peers), visit the employment site, and receive follow-up information were important factors influencing final job choice decisions. The most important attributes driving job acceptance were company culture, advancement opportunity, and the work itself, which are all

83 better experienced through a myriad of job observation opportunities. Students tend to make better decisions when they take advantage of multiple observation opportunities. For example, riding along with a current member of the sales force exposes the students to the day-to-day activities that they will be expected to carry out. Meeting with higher levels of sales leadership gives students the opportunity to learn more about the company’s expectations, future opportunities, and leadership philosophy. Visiting corporate headquarters allows the student to see the overarching culture of the company. Multiple opportunities to observe various aspects of the company are key to finding the right person–job fit that aligns with what students are looking for in a future employer. However, students are often reluctant to take advantage of these observation opportunities because they “know” what company (or type of company) they want to work for. Students are prone to limit their exposure to certain opportunities because of preconceived notions of what is the best opportunity for them. Yet students often realize that initial job criteria and preferences were flawed after taking advantage of multiple observation opportunities across a wide range of companies. Once these realizations occur, students can alter their criteria in route to a better person–job fit with the company ultimately chosen. Therefore (Tables 1 and 2): Proposition 14: Faculty that encourage students to take advantage of every opportunity to evaluate the firm through a wide range of activities will increase person– job fit for sales program graduates. Proposition 15: Students will more highly rate the attractiveness of a sales position with companies that expose the student to a broad perspective of the company through ride-alongs with sales reps, visits to corporate headquarters, and interactions with a wide range of company personnel. Working With Career Centers in the Recruitment Process. Sales faculty are often a key resource for career centers and other university departments (e.g., academic advising) that play a role in a student’s employment decisions. By working closely with these groups, sales faculty share their knowledge, of which student skills and traits match up well with certain types of sales and marketing jobs. This interaction is important as many university staff in career development roles are prone to the same negative misconceptions of sales jobs that students often hold. These negative perceptions are likely to harm student–job fit without intervention by the appropriate sales faculty members. Therefore (Table 2): Proposition 16: Sales faculty that actively work with other departments to build and provide good sales-related career support will increase person–job fit in sales program graduates.

84

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1)

Conclusion

Research Implications

Teaching Implications

The propositions represent a launching point for research focusing on intent to pursue a specific sales job opportunity and on drivers of person–job fit among students seeking sales jobs. As such, the article provides an agenda for future research with some potential directions for testing the propositions presented below. One potential way to test a number of these propositions involves examination of actual recruiting branding efforts in much the same way that consumer behavior research investigates brand awareness and brand equity. For example, Proposition 1 could be tested using existing recruiter materials to gauge the relationship between message content and student awareness. The various highlighted aspects such as skills, resources, and opportunities could be coded, and students could be asked to review the materials and then recall measures could be used in a longitudinal design. This could also be tested through experimental manipulation of materials. Propositions 3 through 5 represent other areas where similar tests would help us gain insights on student awareness. Student awareness ratings could be used to develop rubrics to score recruiting materials of sales program sponsors. Similarly, Propositions 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 could be tested by surveying students and employers regarding their contact methods, participants, and recruitment strategies and then match this to career services data on student actions/ outcomes. In addition, actual interviews, or even mock interviews, could be captured and coded to help further understand the propositions concerning student perceptions and decision processes in the individual interview process. Significant opportunity exists for scale development research in the area of employer attractiveness as well as the creation of scales that measure intent to pursue specific sales-related job opportunities. Finally, much could be learned by testing the presented propositions through dyadic research aimed at investigating symmetries or asymmetries in the perceptions of both employers and students across the entire recruitment process. In particular, Proposition 2 presents a unique research opportunity. Research in the area of career development, specifically intent to pursue a sales career and sales company, would benefit from segmentation research methodologies. Through cluster analysis, researchers could gain important insights into the student segments in relation to overall perception of sales jobs, perception of types of sales jobs, and criteria employed during the interview process. Propositions 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 16 pertain to the sales educator stakeholder group. Cross-sectional survey data could be obtained that would help shed light on the degree to which sales faculty participate in the activities presented in these propositions. Person–job fit research in the broader human resources literature can be used to adapt scales for

Taken at face value, the propositions serve as an important, practical guide for faculty in a career-counseling role with their sales students. Several implications for faculty are selfevident by the nature of the propositions and their corresponding sections. The present article also provides important teaching implications for faculty working with students interested in sales positions. First, faculty can use basic principles of marketing courses to introduce students to the concept of employer branding. Discussions about what constitutes good employer branding could occur in parallel with branding discussions related to typical consumer behavior contexts. Discussions can heighten student sensitivity to employer branding efforts, so that they take more time to evaluate the various employer messages that they encounter. Classroom discussions about attractive employer brands can also provide faculty with important information to funnel back to recruiters who promote their respective brands on campus (Proposition 1). Similarly, classroom discussions related to value propositions (in both marketing and sales courses) can be used to shift student thinking to the recruitment process. Students can be encouraged to think about the value-proposition that they offer a prospective employer and the value-proposition that the students would want to be offered. By showing students how these value-propositions should align, sales faculty can demonstrate to students that customer needs—product fit and person–job fit—are important for both marketing and employment “transactions,” respectively. Ultimately, this can trigger students to think about what they are looking for in an employer and as such facilitates person–job fit. Having students complete classroom exercises like these can give faculty valuable insights into segments that might exist in the student population (Proposition 2) and provide faculty with information to be used later in one-on-one student career coaching sessions (Proposition 6). Finally, sales management classes provide students the opportunity to learn about their recruiting strategy preferences (Propositions 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15). Most sales management courses involve a session(s) on recruiting sales representatives. During these sessions, students can be asked to write job descriptions, conduct mock interviews, and evaluate and select prospective reps. By incorporating reflective thinking exercises in these sessions, faculty can prompt students to think more about their own preferences and biases in the recruiting process. These exercises would also give students insights on why recruiters adopt certain strategies and how these strategies provide clues to the type of sales job the company is offering. Again, the end result will be better person–job fit for these students.

Agnihotri et al. construct measurement and to identify additional key antecedents to aligning student needs with employer qualifications. These propositions also deal with main effects. Moderator variables could affect various propositions presented. Once a substantive understanding is achieved concerning how the various stakeholder roles and strategies work together to drive person–job fit, further attention can begin to explore situational constraints. Authors’ Note The authors form the USCA group and are listed alphabetically.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9, 501-517. Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Foundations for organizational science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24, 151-172. Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). Individual job-choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruiting practices: A longitudinal field of study. Human Resource Management, 42(1), 23-37. Bristow, D. N., Gulati, R., & Amyx, D. (2006). A look at professional selling from the students’ perspective: A replication and extension. Marketing Management Journal, 16, 88-103. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928944. The Collegiate Employment Research Institute & Michigan State University Career Services Network. (2013). Recruiting trends 2012-2013 (42nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www. ceri.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FRecruitingTrends-2012-2013.pdf Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1121-1133. Comm, C. L., & LaBay, D. G. (1997). Repositioning colleges using changing student quality perceptions: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 7(4), 21-34. Cook, S., Parker, S., & Pettijohn, C. (2004). The perceptions of interns: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Education for Business, 79, 179-185.

85 Cummins, S., Peltier, J. W., Erffmeyer, R., & Whalen, J. (2013). A critical review of the literature for sales educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 35, 68-78. Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinnati, OH: South Western. Divine, R., Miller, R., Wilson, J. H., & Linrud, J. (2008). Key philosophical decisions to consider when designing an internship program. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, December, 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/08097.pdf Dixon, A., & Adamson, A. (2012, December 4). Reaching the next generation of sales professionals [Webinar]. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, theory, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65-91. Dubinsky, A. J. (1980). Recruiting college students for the salesforce. Industrial Marketing Management, 9(1), 37-45. Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5-23. Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987, January). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace information. Journal of Marketing, 51, 83-97. Feldman, D. C., Bearden, W. O., & Hardesty, D. M. (2006). Varying the content of job advertisements: The effects of message specificity. Journal of Advertising, 35, 123-141. Floyd, C., & Gordon, M. E. (1998). What skills are most important? A comparison of employer, student, and staff perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 20, 103-109. Fogel, S., Hoffmeister, D., Rocco, R., & Strunk, D. P. (2012, July/ August). Teaching sales. Harvard Business Review, 90, 94-99. Forbes, L. F., & Vespoli, E. M. (2013). Does social media influence consumer buying behavior? An investigation of recommendations and purchases. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 11, 107-111. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Frow, P., & Payne, A. (2011). A stakeholder perspective of the value proposition concept. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 223-240. Gault, J., Redington, J., & Schlager, T. (2000). Undergraduate business internships and career success: Are they related? Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 45-53. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. (2011). What’s it worth? The economic value of college majors. Retrieved from http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/ cew/pdfs/whatsitworth-complete.pdf Graham-Leviss, K. (2012). A targeted hiring methodology can hit the bull’s-eye in recruiting sales professionals. Employment Relations Today, 38(4), 9-17. Gray, D. M., Peltier, J. W., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2012). The Journal of Marketing Education: Past, present, and future. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 217-237. Inks, S., & Avila, R. (2008). Preparing the next generation of sales professionals through social, experiential, and immersive learning experiences. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13(1), 47-55. Karakaya, F., Quigley, C., & Bingham, F. (2011). A cross-national investigation of student intentions to pursue a sales career. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 18-27.

86 Knouse, S. B., Tanner, J. R., & Harris, E.W. (1999). The relation of college internships, college performance, and subsequent job opportunity. Journal of Employment Counseling, 36(1), 35-43. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person– supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342. Leasher, M. K., & Moberg, C. R. (2009). Evaluating the impact of collegiate sales training and education on early salesperson performance. Journal of Selling & Major Account Management, 8(4), 32-45. Lusch, R. F. (2007). Marketing’s evolving identity: Defining our future. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 26, 261-268. Mandhanya, Y., & Shah, M. (2010). Employer branding-a tool for talent management. Global Management Review, 4(2), 43-48. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. Meszaros, P. S., Creamer, E., & Lee, S. (2009). Understanding the role of parental support for IT career decision-making using the theory of self-authorship. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33, 392-395. Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2008). Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the Business Week rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 26-41. Moroko, L., & Uncles, M. D. (2008, March). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 160-175. National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2011). 2011 Recruiting Benchmarks Survey (Whitepaper). Bethlehem, PA: Author. Newberry, R., & Collins, M. K. (2012). A recruiting and hiring role-play: An experiential simulation. Marketing Education Review, 22(1), 67-72. Payne, A., Ballantyne, D., & Christopher, M. (2005). A stakeholder approach to relationship marketing strategy: The development and use of the “six markets” model. European Journal of Marketing, 39, 855-871. Peltier, J. W., Cummins, S., Pomirleanu, N., Cross, J., & Simmon, R. (2014). A parsimonious instrument for predicting intent to pursue a sales career: Scale development and validation. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 63-75. Pettijohn, C. E., & Pettijohn, L. S. (2009). An exploratory analysis of sales career desirability: An MBA perspective. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(4), 35-47. Pinar, M., & Hardin, J. R. (2005). The effect of gender on recruiting for sales positions. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 15-32. Posner, B. Z. (1981). Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions of important applicant and job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 34, 329-339.

Journal of Marketing Education 36(1) Price, L. L., & Arnould, E. J. (1999, October). Commercial friendships: Service provider-client relationships in context. Journal of Marketing, 63, 38-56. Raymond, M. A., Carlson, L., & Hopkins, C. D. (2006). Do perceptions of hiring criteria differ for sales managers and sales representatives? Implications for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 43-55. Robinson, S., & Stuberud, H. A. (2012). Communication preferences among university students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 16, 105-113. Rynes, S. L. (1989). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions (CAHRS Working Paper Series; Working Paper No. 89-07). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies. Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15, 286-310. Singh, R., & Greenhaus, J. H. (2004). The relation between career decision-making strategies and person–job fit: A study of job changers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 198-221. Swanson, S. R., & Tomkovick, C. (2012, Fall). Marketing internships: How values and search strategies differ across the studentemployer dyad. Marketing Education Review, 22, 251-262. Swenson, M. J., Swinyard, W. R., Langehr, F. W., & Smith, S. M. (1993). The appeal of personal selling as a career: A decade later. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 13, 51-64. Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. (1987). Organizational recruitment activities and applicants’ reactions at different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel Psychology, 40, 261-285. Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009, September). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73, 90-102. Turban, D. B., & Dougherty, T. W. (1992). Influences of campus recruiting on applicant attraction to firms. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 739-765. Weilbaker, D. C., & Williams, M. (2006). Recruiting new salespeople from universities: University sales centers offer a better alternative. Journal of Selling & Major Account Management, 6(3), 30-38. Werbel, J. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1999). Person environment fit in the selection process. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 17, pp. 209-243). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Wiles, M. A., & Spiro, R. L. (2004, Winter). Attracting graduates to sales positions and the role of recruiter knowledge: A reexamination. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 24, 39-48. Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (1999). Marketing’s contributions to society. Journal of Marketing, 63, 198-218.