Engaging a product-focused sales force in solution selling: interplay of individual- and organizational-level conditions

Abstract

Open access article - paper available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-020-00729-z

This study explains how manufacturers tackle the critical managerial challenge of transforming a product-focused sales force to undertake solution selling. Through an application of configurational theory, the authors explain how individual and organizational conditions combine to determine salespeople’s engagement in solution selling. Multilevel, multisource data from the sales organization of a global supplier of building solutions represent input from salespeople (N = 184), solution champions (N = 23), and sales managers (N = 26). A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis reveals no single, optimal way to overcome transformation challenges. Rather, consistent with prior research, solution selling requires certain types of salespeople, because value-based selling is a necessary condition for successful engagement. Beyond this foundational condition, a heterogeneous sales force can be engaged, as long as the organization provides appropriate support that is tailored to individual salespersons’ needs. The findings affirm that this viable support can come from either sales managers or solution champions.

Full text

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Engaging a product-focused sales force in solution selling: interplay
of individual- and organizational-level conditions
Anna Salonen
1
&Harri Terho
1
&Eva Böhm
2
&Ari Virtanen
3
&Risto Rajala
3
Received: 24 May 2019 /Accepted: 19 April 2020
#The Author(s) 2020, corrected publication 2020
Abstract
This study explains how manufacturers tackle the critical managerial challenge of transforming a product-focused sales force to
undertake solution selling. Through an application of configurational theory, the authors explain how individual and organiza-
tional conditions combine to determine salespeople’s engagement in solution selling. Multilevel, multisource data from the sales
organization of a global supplier of building solutions represent input from salespeople (N= 184), solution champions (N=23),
and sales managers (N= 26). A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis reveals no single, optimal way to overcome transfor-
mation challenges. Rather, consistent with prior research, solution selling requires certain types of salespeople, because value-
based selling is a necessary condition for successfulengagement. Beyond this foundationalcondition, a heterogeneous sales force
can be engaged, as long as the organization provides appropriate support that is tailored to individual salespersons’needs. The
findings affirm that this viable support can come from either sales managers or solution champions.
Keywords Business-to-business marketing .Customer solutions .Sales force transformation .Sales management .fsQCA
Introduction
The imperative to go “downstream”in the value chain is ob-
vious for business-to-business (B2B) companies (Wise and
Baumgartner 1999), which widely and frequently adopt a
solution-based business approach to do so (Panagopoulos
et al. 2017). A majority of Fortune 100 firms have pursued
some kind of solution business strategy by increasing their
service and solution offerings (Guido 2012;Ulagaand
Kowalkowski 2017)—initiatives that demand active partici-
pation from sales forces (Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Reinartz
and Ulaga 2008; Ulaga and Loveland 2014;Wormetal.
2017). Boundary-spanning salespeople are pivotal for crafting
the solution offering and communicating its value-in-use to
customers (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tulietal.2007). Yet
most salespeople seemingly are reluctant to engage in solution
selling (Ulaga and Reinartz 2011), leading some authors to
speculate that companies might need to replace large portions
of their sales forces to achieve their transformation, even
though doing so is costly and would disrupt existing business
and sales routines (Reinartz and Ulaga 2008;Ulagaand
Loveland 2014). In many cases, it is not even viable, such as
when solution sales complement rather than replace product
sales (Storbacka 2011). However, prior academic literature
offers limited guidance for how to encourage product-
oriented salespeople to engage with solution selling.
Against this background, a key managerial consideration is
finding ways to engage sales forces in the transformation from
product selling to solution selling. This complex transforma-
tional context might encompass multiple routes to success
(Ahearne et al. 2010), so we adopt configuration theory to
develop a conceptual framework that explains how a situa-
tional fit between transformation specific factors can encour-
age salesperson engagement in solution selling (Venkatraman
1989). We thus integrate configuration theory with prior find-
ings pertaining to sales force transformations and solution
selling to explain how various configurations of individual
salesperson and organizational conditions might lead to great-
er salesperson engagement. For the empirical study, we rely
on a long-term research collaboration with a European manu-
facturer of intelligent building solutions that, during our
Vikas Mittal served as Area Editor for this article.
*Anna Salonen
anna.k.salonen@utu.fi
1
University of Turku, Turku, Finland
2
TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany
3
Aalto University, Espoo, Finland
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00729-z

research period, was undergoing an organization-wide solu-
tion transformation process. We use multilevel, multisource
empirical data to reflect and address both individual salesper-
son and organizational conditions, nested at three levels of the
sales organization: salespersons, solution champions, and
sales managers. Furthermore, we analyze these matched,
triadic data using fuzzy set qualitative comparative anal-
ysis (fsQCA), a highly relevant method that can reveal
explanatory combinations of conditions, such as those
that explain salesperson engagement in solution selling
(Fiss 2007;Ragin2006). To frame the resulting in-
sights, we establish two main research questions: (1)
Which conditions effectively encourage an industrial
sales force to engage in solution selling? (2) How do
individual and organizational conditions combine to fa-
cilitate salespersons’engagement in solution selling?
In answering these questions, this study contributes to both
personal selling and solution selling literature. First, the results
advance understanding of effective implementations of sales
force–wide planned changes in complex transformation con-
texts (Ahearne et al. 2010;Hartmannetal.2018). Most prior
sales force transformation studies seek to detail a clear set of
specific, exclusive transformation drivers that lead to the de-
sired outcomes when applied universally to sales forces (e.g.,
Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and
Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson and Sohi 2017). However,
Ahearne et al. (2010) suggest that salesperson transformation
paths are idiosyncratic, because salespersons differ fundamen-
tally in their ability to change. Thus, whether a sales force–
wide planned change succeeds likely depends on the organi-
zation’s ability to offer support that fits each salesperson’s
situational needs, in the given transformation context. We take
this notion of idiosyncrasy as a starting point and affirm that
sales force transformation is contingent on tailored organiza-
tional support, designed to match diverse salespersons’situa-
tional needs.
Second, we offer initial insights into the requirements for
engaging salespersons in solution selling. Only a handful of prior
solution studies even consider the roles and activities of sales-
people during solution transformations (Koponen et al. 2019;
Panagopoulos et al. 2017;UlagaandKohli2018;Ulagaand
Loveland 2014). Research has established that salespeople’sso-
lution selling involvement is vital, because it increases both their
own and customers’performance (Panagopoulos et al. 2017), but
the optimal tactics for ensuring salespeople’s engagement in so-
lution selling in the first place remain unclear. Our results suggest
that engaging salespeople who previously were responsible for
product selling in solution selling is possible—as long as each
salesperson’s specific threshold conditions, such as her or his
ability to practice value-based selling, are identified and ad-
dressed(Terhoetal.2017). Furthermore, transforming firms
must recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to
facilitate engagement. Instead, they should develop and offer
support options that fit each salesperson’s situational needs.
Support might involve formal, management-led initiatives or
take the form of support provided by so-called solution
champions who engage in market-shaping activities on
behalf of the selling firm (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen
et al. 2019; Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). These solu-
tion champions influence established ways of thinking
and doing among actors in the institutional environment
that surrounds the transformation to solution selling
(Hartmann et al. 2018). Salespeople’s risk perceptions
also emerge as a core condition of solution selling en-
gagement, with considerable impacts on an individual
salesperson’s need for comprehensive organizational
support.
In the next section, we outline how we build on extant sales
force transformation and solution selling literature to derive a set
of conditions that might explain when and why salespeople en-
gage with solution selling. Then we introduce and apply config-
uration theory to develop our conceptual framework, which re-
flects the notion that individual salesperson and organizational
conditions combine to create situational fit and thus facilitate
salesperson engagement in solution selling. In the methods sec-
tion, we explain the specifics and application of fsQCA, detail
the empirical study context, and present the operationalization of
the study constructs. After outlining the results pertaining to the
necessary and sufficient conditions for solution selling engage-
ment, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of
our findings and some options for further research.
Sales force solution selling transformation
The phenomenon of a sales force solution selling trans-
formation is remarkably complex. Two streams of re-
search are primarily pertinent for understanding it.
Sales force transformation research deals with the fun-
damental context, namely, managing sales force–wide
planned changes. The solution selling literature helps
establish how solution selling differs from product sell-
ing and the requirements that solutions demand during a
sales force transformation. We present extant findings
from these perspectives to identify gaps in knowledge,
then introduce configurational thinking to establish our
proposed conceptual framework.
Sales force transformation research
Many studies consider sales force–wide planned change, yet
the relevant knowledge remains fragmented across different
types of transformation contexts and diverse theoretical per-
spectives. To gain an overview of research insights into the
implementation of sales force–wide planned change (Ahearne
et al. 2010), we carried out an extensive review of leading

general marketing (JM,JMR,JAMS), as well as B2B sales
focused journals (JPSSM,IMM).
1
We identified 26 studies that pertain to a sales force trans-
formation and 4 studies discussing more general transforma-
tions within the selling discipline, as listed in Appendix
Table 10. (Sales force transformation articles that focus spe-
cifically on solution selling are discussed in the next section.)
The summary review in Appendix Table 10 serves two pur-
poses. First, it reveals some key conditions that affect complex
sales force transformations. Second, it demonstrates the dom-
inant focus in prior research on uniform rather than heteroge-
neous transformations, which suggest the potential benefits of
configurational thinking for understanding effective
implementations of sales force transformations.
Regarding relevant transformation conditions, the review
indicates the need to understand unique drivers of change in
specific transformation contexts. Business markets are char-
acterized by fundamental shifts, related to sales strategies,
technologies, and customer expectations, all of which impose
notable pressures on B2B firms to respond with planned
change initiatives (Cuevas 2018; Hartmann et al. 2018;
Sheth and Sharma 2008;Wotruba1996). Sales force transfor-
mation research investigates change management efforts in
three main transformation contexts: the implementation of
firm strategy and culture (e.g., Johnson and Sohi 2017), sell-
ing new products (e.g., Fu et al. 2009), or the adoption of new
technology by the sales force (e.g., Hunter and Panagopoulos
2015)—see Appendix Table 10. These diverse contexts do not
reveal any generic transformation drivers; rather, our review
implies that successful transformations depend on the ade-
quate management of specific drivers of change that pertain
to a particular transformation context.
Although the specific requirements and drivers of change
seem context specific, we note evidence of three key driver
categories of sales force–wide planned change, related to the
individual salesperson, sales managers, and social
influences—see Appendix Table 10. First, transformations
depend on individual salesperson characteristics related to
change, such as attitudes, abilities, and behaviors (Ahearne
et al. 2010; Johnson and Sohi 2017; van der Borgh and
Schepers 2018; Wieseke et al. 2008). Second, sales manage-
ment can drive change through its emphasis, leadership styles,
information provision, sales tools, organizational resources, or
training (Hayati et al. 2018; Morgan and Inks 2001;Terho
et al. 2017; van der Borgh and Schepers 2018; Zablah et al.
2012). Third, social influence by experts, peers, leaders, or
appointed champions can lead to change (Avlonitis and
Panagopoulos 2005; Keränen and Liozu 2020; Lam 2010;
Wieseke et al. 2008,2009). That is, sales force–wide transfor-
mations appear to result from an interplay of individual sales-
person and organizational drivers, and the latter incor-
porate both management and subtler forms of social
influence by peers.
We also find that prior research offers competing premises
regarding the heterogeneity of transformation paths—see
Appendix Table 10. Most studies predict uniform transforma-
tion paths and seek to identify a clear set of transformation
drivers that will lead to desired outcomes (e.g., Hayati et al.
2018; Homburg et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015;
Johnson and Sohi 2017). Yet some studies highlight that
salespeople differ fundamentally in their ability to change
and argue that the “successful implementation of planned
change interventions largely depends on identifying and ap-
preciating the heterogeneity of individual traits that share
meaning with the change”(Ahearne et al. 2010, p. 65).
Contributions that recognize salespeople’s individual transi-
tion paths mainly adopt a narrow focus though, such as deter-
mining how salespeople differ in their ability to change
(Ahearne et al. 2010) or the role of single moderators in af-
fecting salespersons’ability to change (see Mullins et al.
2019; Terho et al. 2017;Zablahetal.2012). Thus, we know
fairly little about how to manage overall sales force transfor-
mations by taking the profiles of individual salespeople into
account.
This review of sales force transformation research in turn
indicates that implementing a sales force–wide planned
change in a complex transformation context (e.g., solution
selling) likely requires considerations of multiple drivers of
change that operate on multiple levels, both individual and
organizational. Furthermore, the drivers can initiate multiple
possible transformation paths among the heterogeneous sales
force, reflecting the various profiles of individual
salespersons. The scarcity of empirical investigations of these
heterogeneous transformation paths offers little evidence re-
garding how these identified principles operate in practice.
Therefore, we also consider solution selling research in order
to establish the nature of the specific transformation context
we study and identify some drivers that might facilitate sales-
people’s engagement in solution selling.
Solution selling research
Among recent service and marketing studies of B2B solutions
(Eggert et al. 2014; Macdonald et al. 2016,Wormetal.2017),
the majority focus on the underlying concept of business so-
lutions and general requirements for seller and customer firms.
Only a handful of solution studies explicitly address the role
and activities of salespersons (e.g., Koponen et al. 2019;
Panagopoulos et al. 2017;UlagaandKohli2018; Ulaga and
Loveland 2014). To develop a foundation for understanding
the requirements that underlie salesperson engagement in
1
We combined search terms pertaining to selling (“sales force”OR “salesper-
son”OR “sales organization”OR “selling”) with those related to transforma-
tion (“transformation”OR “change”OR “shift”OR “new”OR “implementa-
tion”), which resulted in 689 matches.

solution selling, we turn to solution selling literature to devel-
op three main insights (Table 1): (1) the concept of solution
selling, (2) individual and organizational requirements associ-
ated with it, and (3) its outcomes.
Research that investigates the conceptofsolution
selling explicates differences between solution and prod-
uct selling. Customer solutions are more than bundles of
customized, integrated goods and services; they entail
joint supplier–customer processes (Macdonald et al.
2016;Tulietal.2007). Solution selling thus comprises
four relational stages: (1) customer requirement defini-
tion, (2) customization and integration of goods and/or
services, (3) deployment, and (4) post-deployment sup-
port (Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Qualitative studies also
suggest that it differs substantially from traditional prod-
uct selling. Compared with product selling, solution
selling demands a stronger focus on co-creation relative
to persuasion, fuzzier solution specifications, higher net-
work complexity, and stronger relationship orientations
(Ulaga and Loveland 2014). In turn, salespeople have
greater needs to understand customers’businesses, craft
solutions that fit customer needs, orchestrate between
supplier and customer stakeholders, and maintain a con-
tinuous relationship with customers (Friend and Malshe
2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Sheth and Sharma
2008;UlagaandKohli2018).
The identified requirements for solution selling refer to
both the individual salesperson and organizational levels.
Researchers generally agree that solution selling requires a
different type of salesperson than product selling (Ulaga
and Reinartz 2011), and in turn, they have identified sev-
eral skills, attitudes, and behaviors that can facilitate solu-
tion selling. For example, among their skills, salespeople
need general intelligence (Ulaga and Loveland 2014)and
communication competence (Koponen et al. 2019); in
terms of attitudes, solution sellers benefit from a learning
orientation, intrinsic motivation, and teamwork orientation
(Ulaga and Loveland 2014). Finally, the ability to practice
value-based selling is a fundamental requirement of solu-
tion selling, because solutions ultimately build on the
value-in-use concept (Macdonald et al. 2016; Storbacka
2011; Terho et al. 2012). Among the organizational re-
quirements identified for solution selling, we limit our
review to sales force issues. That is, solution selling
requires managerial activities that help implement solu-
tion selling among the sales force, including the estab-
lishment of clear role expectations (Ulaga and Kohli
2018) and specific training initiatives (Storbacka et al.
2011). Moreover, solution selling is more effective
when cross-functional cooperation among coworkers ex-
ists (Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tulietal.2007).
Organizational engagement at the customer interface
Table 1 Key solution selling research
Research Stream/Focus Main Findings Selected Articles
Stream 1: Concept of solution selling
Process-based definition Solution selling comprises four relational processes:
(1) customer requirement definition, (2) customization
and integration of goods and/or services, (3) deployment,
and (4) post-deployment support.
Tuli et al. 2007; Panagopoulos et al. 2017
Difference to product selling Solution selling differs from product selling with regard to
(1) the underlying tenet (co-creation vs. persuasion),
(2) requirement definition (fuzzy hybrid offering vs.
customer-initiated, good-centric), (3) network complexity
(multiple stakeholders in customer and vendor organization
vs. limited number of stakeholders), and (4) outcome
orientation (share growth and contract renewal vs. deal closing).
Ulaga and Loveland 2014
Stream 2: Requirements posed by solution selling
Salesperson-level requirements Solution selling requires a different type of salesperson with
specific (a) skills, like general intelligence or communication
competence; (b) attitudes, like learning orientation, intrinsic
motivation, or teamwork orientation; and (c) behaviors, like
value-based selling.
Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012;
Ulaga and Loveland 2014
Organizational-level requirements Solution selling is supported by managerial practices, such as
communication of expectations, training, facilitation of
cross-functional cooperation, and strengthening relationship ties
with key customer stakeholders
Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Friendand
Malshe 2016; Storbacka et al. 2011;
Tuli et al. 2007; Ulaga and Kohli 2018
Stream 3: Consequences of solution selling
Consequences Salesperson solution involvement enhances (a) salesperson-level
and (b) customer-level sales performance.
Panagopoulos et al. 2017

also is important, and several authors suggest that
strong customer relationships and customer ecosystem–
specific skills can be influential (Friend and Malshe
2016; Panagopoulos et al. 2017;Tulietal.2007).
Finally, regarding the consequences of solution selling,so-
lution selling literature has established that salespeople are
critical resources for achieving a successful solutions busi-
ness. In particular, their solution involvement increases both
salesperson-level and customer-level performance
(Panagopoulos et al. 2017).
Along with these important insights, our review suggests
two major gaps in the current solution selling literature. First,
it tends to focus on the execution phase, to identify factors that
might enhance the effectiveness of solution selling practices
(Panagopoulos et al. 2017). Yet we lack a clear understanding
of what elements must be in place first, to ensure that sales-
people even become engaged in solution selling. Therefore, in
this study, we address requirements for salespeople’ssolution
selling engagement, as a fundamental prerequisite of success-
ful solution selling (Miao and Evans 2013; Verbeke et al.
2011; Zablah et al. 2012). Engagement in a specific activity
is a central motivational concept, referring to a person’sin-
vestment of energy into a task (e.g., Miao and Evans 2013;
Rich et al. 2010). Similar to Zablah et al. (2012), we define
solution selling engagement as sales representatives’invest-
ment of energy in the task, reflected in the time and effort they
devote to solution selling.
2
Second, existing research typically focuses on one or a few
requirements of solution selling, without considering their in-
terplay. A sales force–wide transformation to solution selling
is a tremendously complex undertaking though, and it is un-
likely that any uniform, one-size-fits-all formula exists for
ensuring salesperson engagement. Therefore, we consider var-
ious transformation conditions, operating at the levels of the
individual salesperson and the organization, and we investi-
gate how they might combine tofacilitate salesperson solution
selling engagement, using a configurational approach.
Configurational approach to salesperson solution
selling engagement
To propose the conceptual framework in Fig. 1that explains
salesperson solution selling engagement in solution transfor-
mations, we integrate the preceding insights from sales force
transformation and solution selling research with configura-
tional theory (Venkatraman 1989).
Configuration theory has been applied to a range of com-
plex, multidimensional phenomena at individual, group, and
organizational levels (Meyer et al. 1993). Its central notion of
strategic fit implies that different conditions in a particular
context are not important intrinsically; rather, their criticality
depends on how well they align (Venkatraman 1989).
Different conditions can form gestalts or coherent configura-
tions (Ragin 2000) that lead to a specific outcome. The notion
of fit also entails several assumptions inherent to configuration
theory, such as equifinality, causal asymmetry, and a distinc-
tion between necessary and sufficient conditions. Equifinality
suggests that multiple configurations of conditions can lead to
an outcome of interest (Doty et al. 1993). Causal asymmetry is
the notion that the same conditions can lead to different out-
comes, depending on how those conditions are arranged
(Ordanini et al. 2014). Moreover, configurational theory dis-
tinguishes necessary conditions, which always must be pres-
ent for an outcome to occur, from sufficient conditions,which
may be present and, if so, help bring about the outcome. In
sum, when conditions, relevant to the intended change, differ
with the individual salesperson, salespeople still may achieve
similar levels of solution selling engagement, as long as the
conditions fit, and some salesperson-specific, necessary
threshold conditions exist, which ultimately cannot be com-
pensated for by greater alignment or fit.
To identify these relevant conditions, we rely on our review
of sales force transformation and solution selling research. At
the individual salesperson level, we expect that prior solution
selling experience makes it easier for salespeople to engage
(Franke and Park 2006), because they gain skills and knowl-
edge related to applicable selling approaches, situations, and
customers (e.g., Spiro and Weitz 1990; Weitz et al. 1986). In
addition, their risk perceptions might create obstacles to sales-
people’s solution selling engagement. Perceptions of risks as-
sociated with the sale of novel offerings can cause salespeople
to display conservatism (Sarin et al. 2012; van der Borgh and
Schepers 2018). In a solution transformation context, risk per-
ceptions might be especially prominent, because the transfor-
mation requires salespeople to develop entirely new capabili-
ties, even while they confront uncertainty about the market
acceptance of the new business model (Ulaga and Loveland
2014). Moreover, solution selling engagement might require
the salesperson’s ability to practice value-based selling
(Koponen et al. 2019; Terho et al. 2012,2017; Ulaga and
Loveland 2014), because to achieve solution selling, customer
stakeholders need to perceive the supplier in its new role, as a
facilitator of the customer’s value-in-use processes
(MacDonald et al. 2016;Storbacka2011).
In terms of organizational conditions related to managers,
we draw on the theory of planned behavior and suggest that
sales managers can encourage solution selling engagement by
communicating role expectations about solutions and allocat-
ing resources to solution training (Fu et al. 2009,2010;
Zoltners et al. 2001). Communicating role expectations estab-
lishes subjective norms for new sales; solution training can
2
Solution selling engagement differs from solution selling involvement. The
former captures the motivational core of solution selling; the latter pertains to
actual activities performed by salespeople, defined as “activities that help …
firms provide end-to-end solutions to the salesperson’scustomers”
(Panagopoulos et al. 2017, p. 145).

enhance a salesperson’s sense of self-efficacy or beliefs in his
or her ability to sell the new offering.
In addition to these manager-related conditions, we incor-
porate social influences, in the form of solution champions’
market-shaping behavior. Recent sales literature recognizes
that selling is embedded in broader social systems, in which
institutional arrangements strongly influence exchange prac-
tices (Hartmann et al. 2018). In our studied context for exam-
ple, customers might not be accustomed to enacting relational
solutions processes or could lack procurement practices con-
sistent with solutions buying. They also might not view the
product seller as a legitimate actor in the solutions selling
context, such that they are unwilling to adjust their resource
integration practices toward this seller. Thus, sellers likely
need to shape customer’s mindsets and practices purposefully,
to be consistent with solutions buying. In turn, salespeople
might benefit from input from dedicated solution champions
(Keränen and Liozu 2020), who engage in market-shaping
behaviors (Baker et al. 2019; Nenonen et al. 2019;
Storbacka and Nenonen 2011). Through market shaping, in-
stitutional arrangements that govern the roles and behaviors of
various stakeholders can be shaped intentionally by a firm that
engages in activities aimed at redesigning the exchange,
reconfiguring networks of actors, or reforming institutions
(Nenonen et al. 2019).
In summary, by applying configurational theory to evi-
dence from solution selling and sales force transformation
literature, we predict that salesperson engagement in solution
selling represents a complex phenomenon, in which combina-
tions of conditions likely explain the outcomes better than
individual conditions. Thus, as in Fig. 1, we expect individual
salesperson conditions and organizational conditions to inter-
act, which determines the level of situational fit that can facil-
itate salesperson engagement in solution selling. The resulting
configurations represent alternative pathways to engaging a
heterogeneous sales force in solution selling in a complex
transformation context.
Methodology
We use fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA)
(Ragin 2008) to investigate the combinations of conditions
that might facilitate solution selling engagement among a het-
erogeneous sales force. fsQCA “bridges quantitative and qual-
itative approaches”(Ragin 2008,p.82)andismostsuitedto
identify combinations of multiple conditions that lead to a
desired outcome (Kraus et al. 2018). Unlike more quantitative
approacheswhich build on correlations, fsQCA examines log-
ical connections between conditions and an outcome to deter-
mine whether some single or a set of conditions are necessary
or sufficient for an outcome to occur (Kraus et al. 2018).
Applying a set-theoretic logic, each individual observation is
regarded as a whole, consisting of a specific combination of
conditions that is related or unrelated to an outcome of inter-
est, and is not diaggregated into separate variables (Fiss 2011).
fsQCA originally stems from the political science and so-
ciology literature. In recent years, fsQCA has also gained in-
creasing popularity in marketing and service research. Studies
that adopt it have provided novel insights into service innova-
tion attributes (Ordanini et al. 2014), configurations of drivers
for successful service infusion (Forkmann et al. 2017), and the
interplay of market orientation and marketing performance
measurement (Frösén et al. 2016), among others. While
fsQCA was originally developed for analyzing qualitative da-
ta with relatively small sample sizes, it is increasingly used to
also analyze large samples of up to 1000 cases (Schneider and
Eggert 2014). As a consequence, fsQCA can be considered an
Salesperson Conditions Organizational Conditions
Management Solution
Champions
Solution
experience
Risk
perceptions
Role
expectations
Training
Market
shaping
behavior
Value-based
selling
FIT
Salesperson
Solution Selling Engagement
Fig. 1 Conceptual framework

alternative to conventional data analysis methods for samples
of any size. In choosing the appropriate methodology, re-
searchers should mainly consider the research aim and the
assumed causal structure of a research phenomenon
(Schneider and Eggert 2014). In the paragraph that follows,
we contrast fsQCA with conventional data analysis methods,
i.e., regression and cluster analysis, and also delineate when
each of these approaches is most appropriate.
Contrasting fsQCA with conventional data analysis
methods
We argue that fsQCA is the best method to capture the causal
complexity inherent to applications of configurational theory
(Böhm et al. 2017; Frösén et al. 2016). FsQCA investigates
how several causal conditions jointly (as configurations) ex-
plain an outcome of interest (Fiss 2011; Ragin 2000), thereby
identifying the central causes of a desired outcome (“causes-
of-effects”, Mahoney and Goertz 2006). In doing so, fsQCA
allows to incorporate all the central assumptions of configura-
tion theory, namely, conjunctural causation, equifinality,
causal asymmetry, and the necessity versus sufficiency of
causal conditions (Table 2).
First, fsQCA reveals how several conditions combine to cre-
ate an outcome (Fiss 2011). In other words, fsQCA builds on the
premise that the interplay of conditions rather than single condi-
tions constitute an outcome of interest, which is termed
conjunctural causation (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Second, it
addresses equifinality by allowing several different configura-
tions to lead to the same outcome (Fiss 2007). Third, fsQCA
can distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions and thereby
provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between a
condition and an outcome (Fiss et al. 2013). A condition is con-
sidered necessary when the focal outcome can only be obtained
in the presence of that condition; it is sufficient when the condi-
tion always leads to the focal outcome (Fiss 2007). Combining
these situations, fsQCA can uncover four different forms of cau-
sality (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Fourth, fsQCA accounts for
causal asymmetry, in that the same condition can lead to different
outcomes depending on how it is combined with other condi-
tions. This also implies that the absence of a condition that leads
to an outcome does not necessarily imply the absence of the
outcome (Ragin 2008). Given these characteristics, fsQCA is
considered advantageous when researchers are interested in iden-
tifying the central causes of a certain outcome (“causes-of-ef-
fects”) and when the links between different conditions are con-
sidered to be complex, that is, when an outcome has more than
one cause and when these causes work together to cause the
outcome (Kraus et al. 2018), as is the case with our research.
In contrast, conventional data analysis methods such as re-
gression or cluster analyses often fail to capture the nuances of
causal complexity (Frösén et al. 2016), since they address only
some of the assumptions of configuration theory, as shown in
Table 2.Regression analysis estimates the average or net effect
of one or more independent variables on a dependent variable
(Mahoney and Goertz 2006). This way, researchers are able to
determine how much a particular variable influences the outcome
(“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz 2006). Regression
analyses typically identify “the one and only model”that best
represents the empirical data (Schneider and Eggert 2014,p.
314). Although interaction effects can be used to test configura-
tional arguments to some extent, they generally are limited to
combinations of two or three variables, because higher-order
interactions would be difficult to interpret and could cause
multicollinearity problems (Frösén et al. 2016). In regression
analysis, variables are also always regarded as both necessary
and sufficient, so only one specific form of causality can be
revealed (Schneider and Eggert 2014). Moreover, regression
analysis implicitly assumes unifinality (i.e., the maximum out-
come is achieved only if all positively [negatively] correlated
variables are maximized [minimized]) and causal symmetry
(i.e., the effect of an increase in a variable is equal to and opposite
the effect of a decrease of the same magnitude in that variable)
(Fiss et al. 2013). In sum, regression analyses are most appropri-
ate when researchers aim to test how much a particular variable
influences the outcome (“effect-of-causes”; Mahoney and Goertz
Table 2 Suitability of different methods for testing causal complexity
fsQCA Regression Cluster Analysis
Research Aim Identify combinations of conditions
that lead to an outcome;
Causes-of-effects
Estimate average net effects of
single variables;
Effect-of-causes
Identify distinct groups of
cases that are similar
in several variables
Assumed Causal Structure Links between conditions
are complex
Links between variables are
linear and additive
Internal causal structure is
not relevant
Addressed Assumptions of Configuration Theory
Uncovers conjunctural causation ✓(✓)✓
Identifies equifinal solutions ✓✓
Distinguishes between necessity vs. sufficiency ✓
Allows for causal asymmetry ✓

2006) and when the links between the variables are assumed to
be additive and linear rather than complex and configurational
(Schneider and Eggert 2014).
Cluster analysis can identify distinct groups of cases that
are similar with regard to a set of variables. The resulting
group memberships can be used to predict an outcome of
interest, which produces results similar to fsQCA (Cooper
and Glaesser 2011). Nevertheless, there are major conceptual
differences between fsQCA and cluster analysis, including the
inability of cluster analysis to distinguish necessary from suf-
ficient conditions (Frösén et al. 2016) or account for asymmet-
ric relationships (Fiss 2011). Compared with fsQCA, cluster
analysis also is more inductive, because membership in a spe-
cific cluster is driven at least partly by the distribution of
variables within a particular sample (Cooper and Glaesser
2011). Moreover, cluster analysis does not help to determine
those aspects of a configuration that are central to the outcome
of interest (Fiss 2011), involving limited insights into the in-
ternal causal structure of a configuration. As a result, cluster
analysis is mainly suited for research with a descriptive ap-
proach, e.g. when researchers aim to identify distinct groups
of cases with regard to a set of variables, without being inter-
ested in how the different variables work together (Fiss 2007).
Summing it up, fsQCA allows researchers to gain a more fine-
grained understanding of the causal complexity underlying a
specific research phenomenon. In our case, it enables us to iden-
tify combinations of individual and organizational conditions that
together induce salespeople’s engagement in solution selling,
rather than individual conditions that are universally relevant to
solution selling engagement. Moreover, fsQCA allows us to un-
cover several equifinal ways to engage salespeople in solution
selling, depending on their heterogeneous starting position.
Empirical context and data collection
According to Schneider and Wagemann (2010), familiarity with
the empirical context is advantageous when conducting fsQCA,
because it facilitates the choice of relevant conditions and helps
verify the resulting configurations. We have engaged in a long-
term research collaboration with a European manufacturer of
intelligent building solutions that continues to undergo an
organization-wide solution transformation process, so we have
notable access to relevant cases (i.e., individual salespersons
nested in sales organizations). This research collaboration has
spanned more than 10 years, and the primary study context per-
tains to the solution transformation process. The company em-
ploys over 50,000 employees and reports revenues of nearly 10
billion euros. It operated for more than a century as a product
manufacturer, so its organization, processes, and technologies
strongly evolved according to this established product business.
But in the past decade, it has engaged in concerted efforts to
transform from a product manufacturer to a solution provider,
dedicated to delivering an enhanced building use experience.
With its solution business, this firm seeks positive impacts for
the businesses of its key customers, such as by simplifying the
construction process and making it easier for building owners to
manage the building use experience. This change in vision ac-
companied a novel offering that integrates different building sub-
systems into an intelligent solution. On the offering level, it entails
the combination of various product and service components to
constitute the smart building solution. Initially, the firm sold and
delivered these solutions through a dedicated, global project unit.
To implement an organization-wide transformation to the solu-
tion business, the firm later developed a modular solution offering
that could be sold by salespeople nested in its various subsidiaries
around the globe. Previously, salespeople targeted by the trans-
formation had been responsible solely for sales of the company’s
core product offerings. Given that situations in which companies’
salespeople simultaneously sell existing and new offerings are
hard to implement (van der Borgh et al. 2017), the firm
established a dedicated transformation program. We leveraged
our close access to key decision-makers in the firm, combined
with our understanding of prior literature, to identify pertinent
conditions for solution selling engagement in this relevant case.
To understand the conditions that prompt salesperson solution
selling engagement, we collected multilevel and multisource sur-
vey data from salespeople, sales managers, and solution cham-
pions in the company’s various sales organizations. We
approached 34 local sales organizations that operate in different,
international sales areas. They are country subsidiaries of varying
sizes, tasked with selling the firm’sglobalofferingintheirre-
spective geographical regions. The sales organizations are ex-
pected to handle all types of customers and offerings except for
highly complex, fully tailored, large-scale solutions that exceed a
specified monetary threshold and thus get sent to the global
project organization. The fsQCA methodology requires matched
triadic data with no missing values for the studied conditions; we
were able to collect complete triadic data sets from 26 local sales
organizations, representing 76% coverage. The 8 excluded orga-
nizations lacked management (3), champion (2), or salesperson
(3) responses.
From the sales organizations with complete data sets, we
collected 26 sales manager responses and 23 solution cham-
pion responses (3 champions worked with two organizations
each). The 26 units employed a total of 624 salespersons. The
solution transformation had started one year before the survey,
but the units had reached different phases. In most of them,
some salespeople still had not been tasked with selling the
new solutions offering. Therefore, to identify relevant infor-
mants, the salesperson survey started with five qualification
questions about the salesperson’s (1) attendance at the firm’s
global solution offering launch event, (2) attendance at the
firm’s local solution offering launch event, (3) attendance at
training dealing with the solution offering, (4) current involve-
ment in solution sales, and (5) the next year’s planned involve-
ment in solution sales. Negative responses led to the

informant’s disqualification from this study. We sent the ques-
tionnaire to 624 salespeople and received 290 responses, for a
response rate of 45%. When we excluded those who did not
pass the qualification questions, we retained 200 solution
salespeople in 26 units, such that 69% of the respondents were
involved in the solution selling transformation. After dropping
responses with missing values, we ended with 184 usable
responses, for a total response rate of 29%. Considering that
many salespeople had not yet been involved in the solution
selling transformation though, the effective response rate is
likely higher. Table 3summarizes the respondents’
demographics.
Table 3 Respondent demographics
SALESPEOPLE CHAMPIONS MANAGERS
Sales Experience N Percent Sales Experience NPercent Sales Experience NPercent
5< 45 24.5 5< 8 34.8 5< 5 19.2
5-9 37 20.1 5-9 4 17.4 5-9 5 19.2
10-14 39 21.2 10-14 4 17.4 10-14 2 7.7
15-19 24 13 15-19 5 21.7 15-19 4 15.4
20-24 23 12.5 20-24 0 0 20-24 2 7.7
25> 16 8.7 25> 0 0 25> 4 15.4
Total 184 100 Missing 2 8.7 Missing 4 15.4
Total 23 100 Total 26 100
Gender N Percent Gender N Percent Gender NPercent
Male 167 90.8 Male 21 91.3 Male 23 88.5
Female 10 5.4 Female 1 4.3 Female 1 3.8
Missing 7 3.8 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7
Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100
Education level N Percent Education level N Percent Education level N Percent
Master or higher 52 28.3 Master or higher 7 30.4 Master or higher 11 42.3
Bachelor 56 30.4 Bachelor 10 43.5 Bachelor 11 42.3
Vocational degree 36 19.6 Vocational degree 6 26.1 Vocational degree 3 11.5
High school 26 14.1 High school 0 0 High school 1 3.8
Other 13 7.1 Other 0 0 Other 0 0
Missing 1 .5 Total 23 100 Total 26 100
Total 184 100
Education type N Percent Education type N Percent Education type N Percent
Technical degree 85 46.2 Technical degree 13 56.5 Technical degree 12 46.2
Business degree 50 27.2 Business degree 5 21.7 Business degree 10 38.5
Other 33 17.9 Other 4 17.4 Other 2 7.7
Missing 16 8.7 Missing 1 4.3 Missing 2 7.7
Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Total 26 100
Age NPercent Age NPercent Age NPercent
25< 1 .5 25< 0 0 25< 0 0
25 – 29 10 5.4 25 - 29 0 0 25 - 29 0 0
30-34 24 13 30-34 4 17.4 30-34 0 0
35-39 37 20.1 35-39 3 13 35-39 2 7.7
40-44 36 19.6 40-44 6 26.1 40-44 2 7.7
45-49 25 13.6 45-49 3 13 45-49 8 30.8
50-54 24 13 50-54 3 13 50-54 7 26.9
55-59 16 8.7 55-59 3 13 55-59 4 15.4
60> 11 6 60> 1 4.3 60> 1 3.8
Total 184 100 Total 23 100 Missing 2 7.7
Total 26 100

Measures
We used established scales to study the transformation condi-
tions whenever possible (see Table 4). Unless otherwise noted,
all items rely on seven-point Likert scales, with 1 indicating
strong disagreement and 7 indicating strong agreement. The
solution selling engagement, perceived solution risk, solution
experience, and value-based selling data come from the sales-
person survey. To measure solution selling engagement out-
comes, we use a three-item scale from Fu et al. (2009)that
captures the time, energy, and overall effort salespeople invest
in selling the launched solution. Perceived solution risk relies on
items adapted from Sarin and O’Connor (2009), encompassing
the degree to which salespeople think solution selling might
harm their sales performance and existing customer relation-
ships. The scale for value-based selling comes from Terho
et al. (2017) and measures the extent to which salespeople have
used value-based selling approaches in their previous sales ac-
tivities. To measure solution experience, we ask salespeople to
rate their past sales experience with offerings that are compara-
ble to the launched solutions, on a semantic differential scale
from 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience).
On the organizational level, we consider three key condi-
tions. From the management data, we assess sales managers’
communication of role expectations regarding solutions,
reflected in the extent to which sales managers stress solutions
Table 4 Construct items, loadings, and reliability statistics
Items Loading αCR AVE
Solution selling engagement
a
(based on Fu et al. 2009).96 .97 .92
Compared to other salespeople, how much time do you spend on selling solutions? .94
Compared to other salespeople, how intensively do you work to sell solutions? .98
Compared to other salespeople, how much overall effort do you put into selling solutions? .97
Perceived solution risk
a
(adapted from Sarin and O’Connor 2009).89 .95 .90
Solution sales can harm my sales performance. .95
Solution sales can harm my existing customer relationships. .95
Solution sales can harm my reputation among colleagues at my firm.* –
Solution experience
b
–– –
I have sales experience with offerings that are comparable to our solutions. 1.00
Value-based selling
a
(based on Terho et al. 2017).86 .90 .69
I use a value-based selling approach. .89
Based on a profound knowledge of my customers’business, I show how our products/
services will improve their company’s performance.
.88
I work towards improving my customers’bottom line. .70
I focus on identifying opportunities to improve customers’business profits. .84
Communication of role expectations
b
(based on Homburg et al. 2010).94 .95 .84
I regularly instruct our salespeople to spend their time and attention to solution sales. .79
I keep telling our salespeople that they must gear up for solution sales. .94
I intensively encourage our salespeople to promote solution solutions. .93
I push our salespeople to solution sales. .93
Solution training
c
(adapted from Homburg et al. 2009;Jelinek et al. 2006).92 .94 .81
Our salespeople receive thorough training regarding the technologies for our solutions. .93
Our salespeople receive thorough sales process–related training for solution sales. .90
Our salespeople receive thorough customer business–related training for solution sales. .90
Our salespeople continuously receive training that enhances their ability regarding solution sales. .93
Champion market-shaping behavior
a
(new scale) .88 .92 .74
I regularly meet key stakeholders in this industry to showcase our solution vision. .88
I systematically invest time and effort to make customers rethink their purchasing preferences. .92
I actively influence key opinion leaders in our industry to remove customer constraints for solutions. .86
I work hard to change customers’existing purchasing practices to match with our solutions. .76
a
Anchors: 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
b
Anchors: 1 (no experience) to 7 (extensive experience).
Notes: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.
* Removed indicator.

and encourage salespeople to sell them (Homburg et al. 2010).
The managers also indicate the extent of solution training for
their sales force (Homburg et al. 2009; Jelinek et al. 2006). For
solution champions, we focus on market-shaping behavior de-
signed to modify customer-side features and influence industry
norms (Nenonen et al. 2019). This market-shaping behavior is
measured with a new scale, with items developed based on the
construct definition, five field interviews with champions and
managers involved with market-shaping initiatives, and rele-
vant prior literature. To ensure the clarity and relevance of the
scale indicators, we reviewed the questionnaire with two senior
executives who designed the global solution transformation
program implemented by our partner sales organization. The
data analysis supports the validityandreliabilityofthescales,
Table 5 Correlations, means, and
standard deviations Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Solution selling engagement .96
2. Perceived solution risk −.01 .95
3. Solution experience .38** −.08 –
4. Value-based selling .08 -,18* .19* .83
5. Communication of role expectations .08 -,17* .05 ,15* .90
6. Solution training .01 −.14 .01 .07 .63** .92
7. Champion market-shaping behavior −.07 −.11 .01 .09 .20** −.02 .86
Mean 4.17 2.78 4.11 5.54 5.00 4.09 5.21
Standard deviation 1.47 1.53 1.80 0.92 1.10 1.39 1.52
N 184 184 184 184 23 26 26
*p< .05. ** p< .01. (Significance is based on two-tailed tests.)
Note: The square root of the average variance extracted appears on the diagonal in bold.
Derive measures for theoretically relevant conditions and outcome
Determine thresholds for nonmembership, full membership, and indifference
Transform variables into fuzzy set scores to capture the degree of membership in each condition and outcome
Build Truth Table
List all possible configurations of conditions
Identify whether configurations lead to the outcome
Ident ify Rel evant and Consistent Co nfiguration s
Determine thresholds for frequency and consistency
Limit truth table to relevant and consistent configurations
Step 3: Construction of Truth Table
Check whether any condition or its negation is necessary for the outcome
Step 2: Identification of Necessary Conditions
NOITARAPERP
PHASE
ESAHPSISYLANA
Use Boolean logic to reduce configurations to its most simple logical expression
Evaluate configur ations using consist ency and coverage measure s
Distinguish “ core” and “periphery” conditio ns
Step 4: Identification of Sufficient Conditions
Evaluate and interpret the final set of configurations that consistently lead to the outcome
Step 5: Interpretation of Results
NOITATERPRETNI
PHASE
Step 1: Calibration and Transformation of Conditions
Fig. 2 Analytical procedure of fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

with Cronbach’s alphas (>.70), composite reliabilities (>70),
average variances extracted (>.50), and factor loadings (>.70)
that exceed recommended minimum thresholds (Table 5).
Fornell and Larcker’s(1981) criterion also is met. We sum
the validated scales for the fsQCA. Table 5contains the de-
scriptive statistics and correlations of the measures.
Analytical procedure and empirical results
of the fsQCA
FsQCA usually involves five steps (Fig. 2), which we specify
here, together with the empirical study results. We conduct
our analysis using the fs/QCA 3.0 software package (Ragin
and Davey 2016).
Step 1: Calibration and transformation of conditions.
In a first step, the different measures for the condi-
tions and the outcome are calibrated and transformed
into fuzzy set scores ranging from 0 to 1, indicating
the degree of membership in each condition. This effort
requires determining thresholds for nonmembership, full
membership, and indifference for each variable. The cal-
ibration should build on theoretical anchors instead of
empirical means to classify membership versus non-
membership (Fiss 2011). In line with Frösén et al.
(2016), we use theoretically meaningful thresholds to
calibrate our Likert scales, with 2 (disagree) indicating
the threshold for non-membership (fuzzy set score of
.05), 6 (agree) indicating the threshold for full member-
Table 6 Calibration
Construct Original Scale Thresholds Used in Calibration
Solution selling engagement Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(“disagree”)
Perceived solution risk Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(“disagree”)
Solution experience Semantic differential scale (from 1 “no
experience”to 7 “extensive experience”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
7(“extensive experience”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
1(“no experience”)
Value-based selling Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(“disagree”)
Communication of role
expectations
Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(“disagree”)
Solution training Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(“disagree”)
Champion market-shaping
behavior
Summed Likert scale (from 1 “strongly
disagree”to 7 “strongly agree”)
Threshold for full membership
(fuzzy score of .95)
6(“agree”)
Crossover point (fuzzy score of .50) 4 (“neither agree nor disagree”)
Threshold for non-membership
(fuzzy score of .05)
2(
“disagree”)

ship (fuzzy set score of .95), and 4 (neither agree nor
disagree) indicating the crossover point (fuzzy set score
of .50). For solution experience, measured with a se-
mantic differential scale with two polarized response
options, we use the scale endpoints 1 (no experience)
and 7 (extensive experience) as thresholds for full non-
membership and membership as well as their mid value
as the crossover point (see Table 6).
Step 2: Identification of necessary conditions.
The second step checks whether any condition or its nega-
tion are necessary for the outcome of interest. A single condi-
tion is necessary if it is always present (absent) when the
outcome occurs (Fiss 2007), that is, when the consistency
score for a specific condition exceeded a threshold of .90
(Schneider and Wagemann 2010). The consistency scores in
our study ranged between .22 and .95, and one condition
(value-based selling) exceeds the .90 threshold (Table 7):
Salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condition to
achieve solution selling engagement. Otherwise, solution
selling engagement theoretically can be achieved in the pres-
ence or absence of all other conditions.
Step 3: Construction of truth table.
In the third step, we construct a truth table that lists all
possible combinations of conditions, then assign empirical
cases to the different configurations and determine if they lead
to the outcome or not (Fiss 2011). We can reduce the truth
table to relevant and consistent configurations by applying
minimum frequency and consistency thresholds. The truth
table for our study, listing all logically possible combinations
of the six conditions, is in Appendix Table 11.Itconsistsof64
configurations (2
k
; k = number of conditions). However,
when a necessary condition is identified in the second step
of fsQCA analysis, truth table rows that do not contain this
condition should be excluded from the minimization process
(Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Wagemann et al. 2016).
When we exclude rows without value-based selling, the truth
table encompasses 32 configurations, and we observe 18 of
them in our sample. The remainders are mainly configurations
that do not feature any communication of role expectations,
which is reasonable; planned strategic transformations usually
attract substantial management attention. Thus, as is typical
for fsQCA studies, the logically excluded remainders repre-
sent unlikely empirical configurations (Ragin 2008). In
turn, we feel confident that limited diversity is not a concern.
We reduced the truth table to the set of meaningful configu-
rations by identifying those consistently associated with high
solution selling engagement. In line with prior studies, we
used a consistency score of .75 and a frequency threshold of
three observations per configuration (Ragin 2008). Nine con-
figurations meet these thresholds and represent configurations
that consistently lead to solution selling engagement.
Step 4: Identification of sufficient conditions.
The fourth step continues with the identification of suffi-
cient conditions or configurations of conditions. In this step,
we apply Boolean algebra to reduce relevant configurations
linked with the outcome to their most simple, logical expres-
sions (Ragin 2006). In detail, the truth table algorithm sim-
plifies the logical expressions that describe the configurations
based on redundancy levels (e.g., if A*B*C →X and A*B* ~
C→X, then A*B →X) (Fiss 2011;Ragin2008). The
resulting configurations can then be evaluated using consis-
tency and coverage measures. Consistency indicates the suf-
ficiency of a configuration and the extent to which con-
figurations uniformly lead to the outcome (Ragin 2006);
coverage captures the empirical relevance of a
Table 7 Necessary conditions for solution selling engagement
Condition Consistency Coverage
Salesperson conditions
Perceived solution risk
.35 .77
~ Perceived solution risk
.84 .64
Solution experience
.71 .76
~ Solution experience
.48 .57
Value-based selling
.95 .63
~ Value-based selling
.22 .81
Organizational conditions
Communication of role expectations
.86 .66
~ Communication of role expectations
.36 .76
Solution training
.67 .68
~ Solution training
.54 .68
Champion market-shaping behavior
.81 .62
~ Champion market-shaping behavior
.35 .73
Notes: ~ indicates the absence of a condition

configuration (Fiss 2007;Ragin2006). Within each
configuration, fsQCA can distinguish core and peripher-
al conditions, by comparing parsimonious and interme-
diate solutions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions exhibit a
strong causal relationship with the outcome, whereas
peripheral conditions have a weaker relationship with
the outcome but reinforce the central features of the
core conditions (Fiss 2011). Core conditions are part
of both the intermediate and parsimonious solutions;
peripheral conditions only appear in the intermediate
solution.
In our case, we reduced the set of nine meaningful
configurations to five configurations, using the fuzzy
truth table algorithm implemented in fsQCA software
(Ragin 2008). Table 8reports the results obtained with
the intermediate solution; Appendix 3 presents the over-
all solution using formal Boolean notation. We evaluate
solution quality with consistency and coverage criteria.
Consistency should not fall below .75 (Fiss 2011), as is
the case for the overall solution and each individual
configuration. That is, the consistency scores range
between .79 and .92, so each identified configuration
is consistently associated with salespeople’s solution
selling engagement. In terms of coverage, the five iden-
tified configurations capture approximately 77% of
membership in the outcome; the overall solution ex-
plains a substantial proportion of salespeople’ssolution
selling engagement. Because the unique coverage values
also are greater than 0, all configurations are relevant
for explaining solution selling engagement. Within dif-
ferent configurations, we distinguish core from periph-
eral conditions by comparing the intermediate and par-
simonious solutions.
Step 5: Interpretation of results.
Finally, we must interpret the fsQCA solution. The
identified solution contains five configurations that con-
sistently result in solution selling engagement among
salespeople (see Table 8). As seen from the results,
salespeople’s value-based selling is a necessary condi-
tion, such that they engage in solution selling only if
Table 8 Sufficient conditions for solution selling engagement

they have practiced a value-based selling approach in
their prior selling tasks. Otherwise, solution selling en-
gagement theoretically can be achieved in the presence
or absence of the remaining conditions, depending on
the situational fit.
Configuration C1 features exceptional salespeople
with prior solution selling experience, a value-based
selling capability, and no solution selling risk percep-
tions. In this optimal but rare situation, salespeople
can transition into solution selling without any organi-
zational support; their solution selling engagement is
high even if they never receive communications about
role expectations, training, or solution champion sup-
port. Configurations C2a and C2b characterize
salespersons with no perceived solution selling risk
who practice value-based selling. Experience with solu-
tions is not of concern for these salespeople. They suc-
cessfully engage in solution selling when sales manage-
ment encourages the sales force by communicating role
expectations and when they either receive training or
champion support. Configuration C3 indicates that prior
solution experience and value-based selling can result in
engagement, irrespective of perceived risk, as long as
there is a simultaneous presence of management-level
support in terms of communication of role expectations
and champion-level support. In this configuration, prior
solution selling experience represents the core condition,
and the other conditions reinforce it. Finally, salespeo-
ple in Configuration C4 confront high perceived solu-
tion selling risk, a core condition that is causally more
important than the other conditions. In this situation,
salespeople only engage in solution selling if they re-
ceive exhaustive support from both managers and cham-
pions, such that management communicates expectations
and offers training, and solution champions create op-
portunities through their market-shaping efforts. As
such, Configuration 4 seems to reflect the most chal-
lenging starting position for a sales force transformation
to solution selling. In contrast, Configurations 2a, 2b,
and 3 demand sales managers to invest in some but
not all forms of organizational support.
In sum, our results reveal that it is not a single condition
alone that explains salespeople’s engagement in solution sell-
ing, but rather combinations of conditions, thereby illustrating
the causal complexity inherent in solution transformations.
The results support the notion that solution selling en-
gagement is contingent on the fit between individual
salesperson-level conditions and organizational support
conditions. Specifically, the five identified configura-
tions represent equifinal paths to engaging salespeople
with heterogeneous starting positions. Organizational
support turns out to be vital for most salespeople, but
not every form of organizational support is equally es-
sential for every type of salesperson. In particular, the
results suggest that salespeople who regard solution sell-
ing as risky require exhaustive support, by both man-
agers and solution champions. If, instead, salespeople
do not perceive the transition as risky, management
and champion support can act as substitutes. Some ex-
ceptional salespeople (who know how to practice value-
based selling, have prior experience with solution sell-
ing, and do not perceive risk) can engage without any
organizational support.
Discussion and conclusions
Theoretical implications
This research contributes to both sales force transforma-
tion and solution selling literature. First, we take the
notion of salesperson heterogeneity as a starting point
and apply configurational thinking to demonstrate that a
large-scale sales force transformation features equifinal
paths to the intended outcome among a heterogeneous
sales force. Prior studies have, with a few exceptions,
sought to identify universal antecedents that will gener-
ally result in intended outcomes when applied across the
entire sales force (e.g., Hayati et al. 2018; Homburg
et al. 2010; Hunter and Panagopoulos 2015; Johnson
and Sohi 2017). However, as suggested by Ahearne
et al. (2010) and shown in this study, salespeople differ
in their ability to change whereby a universal applica-
tion of transformation conditions across the salesforce
may not be the best approach to achieve complex
transformations.
Second, our findings extend solution selling research
with novel insights about the individual and organiza-
tional conditions of engaging product-centric salespeople
in solution selling. Beyond the recognition that solution
selling is important and challenging to implement, prior
literature provides relatively little insights on how to
foster the shift from product selling to solution selling
(Panagopoulos et al. 2017; Ulaga and Loveland 2014).
On a more general level, our results challenge and ex-
tend established thinking about the possibility of engag-
ing product-oriented salespeople in solution selling. On
the one hand, we confirm that not all salespeople are
willingorabletomoveintosolutionselling(Ulagaand
Loveland 2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). On the other

hand, our results contest the prevailing notion that a
transformation to solution selling requires large-scale re-
cruitments of new salespeople (Ulaga and Loveland
2014; Ulaga and Reinartz 2011). As long as they have
value-based selling capabilities, heterogeneous salespeo-
ple can be engaged in solution selling through appropri-
ate organizational support tailored to the salesperson’s
individual needs.
With regard to the specific conditions of solution
selling engagement, two findings are particularly impor-
tant, given that they have not been addressed in prior
solution selling research. First, risk perceptions emerged
as a critical condition of salespeople’s engagement in
solution selling. While prior literature has mainly
stressed the ability-related aspects of salesforce transfor-
mation, such as individual skills and capabilities (e.g.,
Bonney and Williams 2009; Ulaga and Loveland 2014),
our findings indicate that there is a need to consider
salespersons’risk perceptions and ways to mitigate
these perceptions through the provision of tailored orga-
nizational support for the transformation. Second, our
results highlight the vital role of solution champions,
which resonates with recent calls to adopt an institution-
al perspective in marketing and sales research (e.g.,
Baker et al. 2019; Hartmann et al. 2018; Vargo and
Lusch 2016). When a new solution introduced to the
market does not fit customers’established resource in-
tegration practices, it requires the negotiation of institu-
tional resistance (Hartmann et al. 2018), which often is
beyond the capacity of any individual salesperson.
Solution champions act on behalf of the organization
to help the salesperson redesign the exchange, reconfig-
ure networks of actors, or reform institutions (Baker
et al. 2019;Nenonenetal.2019;Storbackaand
Nenonen 2011).
Managerial implications
Our research provides several suggestions for how manufac-
turers should manage a sales force–wide transformation from
product selling to solution selling (see Table 9).
First, with regard to the general management of sales
force transformations, our results stress the fit between
individual salesperson characteristics and different forms
of organizational support. Building on this, we suggest
a systematic planning of large-scale transformations that
includes two major steps. Transformation management
should begin by creating salesperson profiles, based on
key conditions central to the transformation in question.
Then, management can proceed by developing a tailored
organizational support program. Such an approach pro-
vides salespeople with individualized support while also
Table 9 Managerial implications
Instrumental Area Key Findings Suggestions
General Management of
Sales Force Transformation
•Solution selling engagement is contingent
on the fit between individual
characteristics and organizational support
•Systematic planning of transformation management
should include (1) the creation of salesperson
profiles and (2) the development of tailored
organizational support programs that fit those profiles
Sales Force Selection
and Targeting
•Few exceptional salespeople engage in
solution selling virtually without any
organizational support
•Identify most appeling candidates to form a
smaller-scale solution sales force that kicks off the
solution transformation (salespeople with high
value-based selling abilities, solution selling
experience, and low risk perceptions)
•Value-based selling is a threshold competency
for solution selling engagement
•Screen salespeople for their ability to practice
value-based selling
•Introduce tools and trainings to enhance
value-based selling capabilities if necessary
•Salespeople with high risk perceptions
have the highest need for organizational
support
•Reduce risk perceptions such as by offering solution
incentives, setting realistic objectives, and
communicating the benefits of solutions
Forms of Organizational
Support
•Role expectations are an important
facilitator of solution selling engagement
•Convince sales managers of the relevance of the
solution business and the importance of communicating
clear role expectations
•Champion support can act as substitute
for management support
•Introduce dedicated solution champions
•Solution champions might be chosen from the
smaller-scale solution sales team that initially kicked
off the solution transformation

helping the organization to target its scarce organiza-
tional resources most efficiently.
Second, our results offer actionable guidelines to the selec-
tion and targeting of salespeople to participate in solution
selling. We show that some exceptional salespeople can en-
gage in solution selling without requiring virtually any
organizational support; those salespeople exhibit value-
based selling abilities, have solution selling experience,
and express low risk perceptions. These rare salespeople
are likely critical to initiating the first steps of a firm-
wide solution transformation and might be part of a
smaller-scale sales team to kick off the solution trans-
formation. By sharing internal success stories, this initial
sales team can create positive pressure that encourages
other salespeople to also engage in solution selling.
For broader transformation roll-outs, our results provide
important recommendations for identifying salespeople pro-
files and targeting them with appropriate support. All sales-
people should be able to practice value-based selling, so man-
agers should screen existing sales forces for the presence of
this threshold competency. Beyond that, salespeople with dif-
ferent profiles can be engaged, through appropriate forms of
organizational support, mainly determined by their risk per-
ceptions. Because the need for support diminishes among
salespeople with low risk perceptions, management could at-
tempt to reduce risk perceptions by offering solution incen-
tives, setting realistic objectives, and persuasively communi-
cating the benefits of solution selling for customers, the com-
pany, and individual salespeople.
Third, managers can build on our research to select effec-
tive forms of organizational support for sales force transfor-
mations. Communicating role expectations emerges as an es-
sential facilitator of solution selling engagement among sales-
people; only a few exceptional salespersons shift into solution
selling without it. Top-level management should therefore
convince sales managers of the relevance of the solution busi-
ness and stress the importance of communicating clear expec-
tations to the sales force. Moreover, we identified solution
champions as a potential substitute for management support.
Manufacturers should therefore consider introducing dedicat-
ed solution champions within specific business units to facil-
itate solution transformations. These could be exceptional
salespersons who have been part of a solution-specific sales
team during the initial phases of the solution transformation.
Limitations and further research
The limitations of this study offer promising avenues for fur-
ther research. First, we focus on salesperson solution selling
engagement, a critical first step toward realizing a sales force–
wide solution transformation. It logically is needed for subse-
quent solution selling performance, yet engagement does not
automatically translate into solution selling or customer-
related performance. Whereas our study offers valuable in-
sights into the critical conditions that drive salespersons’so-
lution selling engagement, further research is needed to detail
its performance links and contingencies.
Second, to study the complex interplay of individual
and organizational conditions, we collaborated with one
firm, which granted us vast access to its salespeople,
sales managers, and solution champions. Yet the data
refer exclusively to one solution provider, working in
a specific industrial setting, so the results cannot be
automatically generalized to a broader population.
Nevertheless, we posit that the particular transformation
conditions identified in this study are likely to apply to
the selling of most standardized, modularized solutions.
Still, we encourage future research to confirm these
findings in different empirical contexts.
Third, the results point to a crucial role of solution
champions, as facilitators of solution selling engagement
in an industrial sales force. Noting their importance, it
would be worthwhile to determine further how solution
champions’market-shaping activities shape salespeoples’
risk perceptions and help overcome customers’institu-
tional resistance in a solution transformation context.
Fourth, given that fsQCA places a practical limit on
the number of conditions feasible to include in the anal-
ysis (Wagemann et al. 2016), we chose to focus on
salesperson and organizational conditions. In doing so,
we indirectly address the customer perspective, for in-
stance, by incorporating salespeople’s risk perception
that solution selling might harm their existing customer
relationships. The need for solution champions’market
shaping efforts reflects the readiness of customers to
buy solutions. Nevertheless, we note that the customer
perspective is still remarkably absent in solution selling
research and therefore encourage future research to ex-
plicitly incorporate customer conditions as an additional
level of analysis.
Finally, by focusing on selected conditions in the
context of a solution transformation spanning both indi-
vidual and organizational levels, we established novel
insights about the nature of complex salesforce transfor-
mations. These exploratory insights pave the way for
future research to develop and test a new theory of
salesforce transformation that builds on the assumption
that salesforce-wide transformations are contingent on
the fit between individual and organizational conditions
that interact to facilitate engagement of a heterogenous
salesforce in planned organization change. We encour-
age such theorizing efforts, incorporating multiple orga-
nizations across various transformation contexts.
Funding Information Open access funding provided by University of
Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital.

Appendix 1
Table 10 Sales Force Transformation Research (full references available on request)
Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization
of Drivers
Uniformity
of the
Transformation
Design
Sp. Soc. Org.
Mullins et al.
(2019)JAMS
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: customer value
orientation
Salesperson, leader, customer, and sales team factors explain salesperson motivation to
conduct value-based selling. Prevention-focused salespersons move to value-based
selling only when the sales team monitoring climate is lower.
X X X Not uniform N= 433 Salespersons;
N= 70 Managers
Keränen and
Liozu (2020)
IMM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: customer value
management
Organizational value champions can facilitate customer value management through four
role configurations related to the level (individual; organizational) and continuance
(temporary; permanent). Various championing roles drive change among internal and
external stakeholders.
X Uniform Qualitative, interviews
with 59 managers
Hayati et al.
(2018)JAMS
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: new strategy
Sales managers’transactional and transformational leadership and central peers’strategy
role commitment drive salesperson strategy role commitment. Non-committed peers
with high network centrality can hinder these effects.
XX Uniform N= 398 salespersons;
N= 60 Managers
Terho et al.
(2017)IMM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: customer value
orientation
Salesperson adoption of value-based selling requires specific motivations and abilities,
such as learning orientation and networking skills. Organizational opportunities, in the
form of value assessment tools, can help less apt salespersons adopt value-based
selling behaviors and boost the performance effects of value-based selling.
X X Not uniform N= 944 Salespersons;
N = 43 sales directors
Johnson and Sohi
(2017)IMM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: New offering
strategy
Implementation motivation, opportunity, and ability drive salesperson strategy
implementation behaviors. These variables are in turn driven by involvement in
strategy development, role autonomy, and training. The effects of motivation and
ability on strategy implementation behaviors are contingent on perceived
opportunities, which both boost and weaken these effects.
X X Not uniform N= 277 Salespersons
Boichuck et al.
(2014)JM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: preventing sales
oriented behaviors
Transformational leadership and supportive error management policy prevent
salespersons from being selling oriented when facing sales failures.
X Uniform Longitudinal, N=221/
N= 635 Salespersons;
Sarin et al.
(2012)JMR
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy:newstrategy
Successful implementation of strategic change depends on management’s ability to affect
salesperson reward and risk perceptions for implementing the change.
XXUniformN= 828 salespersons in
204 branches
Chakrabarty
et al. (2012)
JPSSM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: customer
orientation
Top management long-term orientation and top management emphasis drive customer
orientation among salespeople through social learning.
X Uniform N= 241 salespersons
Ahearne et al.
(2010)JM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: sales force wide
planned change
Some salespeople are better at adapting to change than others. Learning-oriented
salespersons have suboptimal performance at the beginning of change but ultimately
have steeper performance recovery curves and higher re-stabilization levels.
Performance orientation has the opposite effect.
X Not uniform Longitudinal, N=400
Salespersons
Lam et al. (2010)
JM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: Market
Orientation
Market orientation diffuses to sales representatives as a social learning process from “Top
management to Middle managers and Expert peers”who act as role models. Actors’
network size hinders the informal route of learning through expert peers but not the
formal route through middle managers.
X Uniform N= 1528 Salespersons;
N= 285 managers;
N = 43 directors
Wieseke et al.
(2009)JM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: Organizational
identification
Organizational identification transfers top-down from business unit managers to middle
management to salespersons. Leader-follower dyadic tenure and charismatic leader-
ship moderate the social identification effects.
XX Uniform N= 1005 Salespersons;
N=394 Sales
managers; N = 22 BU
managers
XX Uniform N= 85 salespersons

Table 10 (continued)
Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization
of Drivers
Uniformity
of the
Transformation
Design
Sp. Soc. Org.
Grant & Bush
(1996) JPSSM
Sales force–wide implementation of firm
culture and strategy: Organizational
value congruence
Sequential and serial socialization tactics, highlighting role of providing information to
salesperson and socialization by peers, are positively connected to organizational
value congruence among the sales force.
van der Borgh
and Schepers
(2018)JAMS
New product selling Salesperson conservatism toward new products hinders engagement in efforts to sell new
products but makes their efforts to sell new products more effective. Conservative
selling behaviors and new product sales are driven by salespeople’s risk assessments,
moderated by new product information–guided risk framing, which determines the
weight of the performance risk.
XXUniformN= 172 salespersons
N= 31 Managers
Chen et al.
(2015)IMM
New product selling Output-, behavior-, and knowledge-based sales management controls drive salespeople’s
perceptions of organizational support for being innovative in new product selling and
thereby affect new product sales performance
X Uniform N= 315 Salespersons
Zablah et al.
(2012) JPSSM
New product selling A job demands-resources model identifies determinants of salesperson new product
selling outcomes. The model is a dual-process theory whereby salesperson selling
demands and selling resources affect new product selling engagement and burnout.
Resources and demands interact to create these outcomes, calling for a balance be-
tween drivers.
X X Not uniform Conceptual
Kauppila et al.
(2010)IMM
New product selling Organizational support and control systems affect salespersons’reluctance to sell
radically new products, both directly and indirectly through individual salesperson
factors.
X X Uniform Conceptual
Fu et al. (2010)
JM
New product selling Salesperson attitude and self-efficacy toward new products drive selling intentions;
subjective norms are less effective drivers and also weaken other positive effects.
X Uniform Longitudinal, N=226
Salespersons
Fu et al. (2009)
JPSSM
New product selling Assigned goals drive new product sales effort and sales with an inverted U-shaped effect.
Self-set goals fully mediate the link between assigned goals and selling effort.
X X Uniform Longitudinal N=143
salespersons
Fu et al. (2008)
JPSSM
New product selling Product innovativeness has a positive and customer newness has a negative impact on
salespeople’s intention to sell new products, affecting new product performance
indirectly.
X Uniform N=493 /N=362
salespersons
Wieseke et al.
(2008)JAMS
New product selling Expected customer demand and sales managers’new brand adoption drives salesperson
new brand adoption. For salespeople who perceive lower expected customer demand,
the management adoption effect on their adoption is stronger.
X X Not uniform N= 310 salespersons
N= 112 Managers
Rochford and
Wortruba
(1996)JAMS
New product selling Adjustment of sales quotas is positively connected to new products’launch success X Uniform N = 112 sales managers
Hunter and
Panagopoulos
(2015)IMM
Adoption of sales technology Salesperson’s normative and continuance commitment to technological change drive
sales technology infusion and thereby customer orientation and sales performance.
X Uniform N= 303 Salespersons
Casio et al.
(2010)IMM
Adoption of sales technology Salesperson perceived alignment of top management and immediate supervisors’
commitment to SFA is an important influence on salespeople’s adoption.
XXUniformN= 292 salespersons
Homburg et al.
(2010)JAMS
Adoption of sales technology Regional and sales managers’SFA adoption has positive effects on subordinates’SFA
adoption. These social effects explain SFA adoption beyond the effects of traditional
TAM variables.
XX Uniform N= 1040 sales-persons;
N= 416 Managers
N = 22 directors
Avlonitis and
Panagopoulos
(2005)IMM
Adoption of CRM technology Perceived usefulness and personal innovativeness drive CRM acceptance. Social
influences, such as supervisor and competitive influences, drive CRM acceptance
beyond the TAM variables.
XX Uniform N= 240 salespersons

Table 10 (continued)
Study Type of Transformation Drivers that Facilitate Transformation Categorization
of Drivers
Uniformity
of the
Transformation
Design
Sp. Soc. Org.
Jones et al.
(2002) JPSSM
Adoption of sales technology Personal innovativeness, attitude toward the system, and organizational facilitating
conditions drive SFA system utilization.
X X Uniform N = 85 salespersons
Morgan and Inks
(2001)
Adoption of sales technology Accurate user expectations, user influence, and training are positively related to
acceptance of SFA technology.
XXUniformN= 131 salespersons
Hartmann et al.
(2018)JM
General change of selling thought:
Service dominant logic / institutional
view to selling
A systemic and institutional perspective recognizes that selling unfolds over time and is
embedded in broader social systems. A service ecosystems perspective on selling
highlights the interaction between actors aimed at creating and maintaining “thin
crossing points”through the ongoing alignment of institutional arrangements and the
optimization of relationships. This view calls for attention to broader sets of actors
who participate in selling processes.
–Conceptual
Cuevas (2018)
IMM
General change of selling thought:
Transformation of professional
selling in B2B markets
Contemporary professional selling is transforming by: (1) increasing emphasis of hybrid
offerings, requiring deep customer business understanding; (2) more
boundary-spanning and formalized sales relationships; and (3) sales roles that move
away from isolated functions toward broader integration of end-to-end business pro-
cesses. Transformation is driven by new types of buyer behavior and customer
requirements, new information and communication technologies, and increasing
globalization, concentration and competition.
–Qualitative, interviews
with 37 managers
Sheth and
Sharma (2008)
IMM
General change of selling thought: Role
of product to service shift for selling
organizations
Traditional product-focused sales organizations will evolve in two directions. First,
technologies will reduce some traditional sales functions and face-to-face contact.
Second, important customers are likely to be treated through customer-focused sales
organizations and global account management teams. The shifts affect the section,
training, and recruitment of salespeople, as well as their roles.
–Conceptual
Wotruba (1996)
IMM
General change of selling thought:
Transformation of Industrial selling
Industrial selling is driven by new trends involving customers, competitors, and
companies. The changes in markets drive changes related to position (towards
managing customer value, customer need advocacy, acting as internal resource for
policy making), process (establishing trust and obtaining information for offering
development), and people (customer need diagnosing skills, team skills, creating an
empowering atmosphere).
–Conceptual
This study Sales force solution selling
transformation
Salesperson solution selling engagement depends on the fit between salesperson and
organizational conditions, which vary across the heterogeneous sales force.
X X X Not uniform N = 184 salespeople,
N = 23 champions,
N=26 sales
managers
Notes: SFA = sales force automation, TAM = technology acceptance model, CRM = customer relationship management

Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Table 11 Truth Table
Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping
Behavior
Number
01 1 1 1 1 36
00 1 1 1 1 16
00 1 1 0 1 9
11 1 1 1 1 8
00 1 1 1 0 6
01 1 1 0 1 5
01 1 0 0 0 5
11 1 1 0 1 4
10 1 1 1 1 4
01 1 1 1 0 3
01 1 1 0 0 2
01 0 1 1 1 2
10 0 1 1 1 2
11 1 1 1 0 1
11 1 0 0 0 1
01 0 0 0 0 1
10 1 1 1 0 1
10 1 1 0 0 1
10 1 0 0 0 1
10 0 1 0 1 1
00 1 1 0 0 1
00 1 0 0 0 1
00 0 1 1 1 1
11 1 0 1 1 0
11 1 0 0 1 0
11 1 1 0 0 0
11 1 0 1 0 0
11 0 1 1 1 0
11 0 1 0 1 0
11 0 0 1 1 0
11 0 0 0 1 0
11 0 1 1 0 0
11 0 1 0 0 0
11 0 0 1 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
01 1 0 1 1 0
01 1 0 0 1 0
01 1 0 1 0 0
01 0 1 0 1 0
01 0 0 1 1 0
01 0 0 0 1 0
01 0 1 1 0 0
01 0 1 0 0 0
01 0 0 1 0 0
10 1 1 0 1 0

Appendix 3. Boolean Algebra Representation
of the Overall Solution
We can represent the overall solution using formal Boolean
notation, which leads to the following solution formula:
∼Risk Perceptions*Experience*Value−based Selling*∼Role Expectations*∼Training*∼Market Shaping
þ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*∼Training*Market Shaping
þ∼Risk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*∼Market Shaping
þExperience*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Market Shaping
þRisk Perceptions*Value−based Selling*Role Expectations*Training*Market Shaping→Solution Selling Engagement:
Note: * indicates the logical ‘and’; + represents the logical
‘or’; ~ indicates the absence of a condition.
Table 11 (continued)
Perceived Solution Risk Solution Experience Value-Based Selling Role Expectations Solution Training Champion Market-Shaping
Behavior
Number
10 1 0 1 1 0
10 1 0 0 1 0
10 1 0 1 0 0
10 0 0 1 1 0
10 0 0 0 1 0
10 0 1 1 0 0
10 0 1 0 0 0
10 0 0 1 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
00 1 0 1 1 0
00 1 0 0 1 0
00 1 0 1 0 0
00 0 1 0 1 0
00 0 0 1 1 0
00 0 0 0 1 0
00 0 1 1 0 0
00 0 1 0 0 0
00 0 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0 0

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Mathieu, J. E., & Bolander, W.(2010). Why are
some salespeople better at adapting to organizational change?
JournalofMarketing,74(3), 65–79.
Avlonitis, G. J., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2005). Antecedents and conse-
quences of CRM technology acceptance in the sales force. Industrial
Marketing Management, 34(4), 355–368.
Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing,
changing markets: Institutional work as market shaping. Marketing
Theory, 19(3), 301–328.
Böhm, E., Eggert, A., & Thiesbrummel, C. (2017). Service transition: A
viable option for manufacturing companies with deteriorating finan-
cial performance? Industrial Marketing Management, 60(1), 101–
111.
Boichuk, J. P., Bolander, W., Hall, Z. R., Ahearne, M., Zahn, W. J., &
Nieves, M. (2014). Learned helplessness among newly hired sales-
people and the influence of leadership. Journal of Marketing, 78(1),
95–111.
Bonney, L. F., & Williams, B. C. (2009). From products to solutions: The
role of salesperson opportunity recognition. European Journal of
Marketing, 43(7/8), 1032–1052.
Cascio, R., Mariadoss, B. J., & Mouri, N. (2010). The impact of manage-
ment commitment alignment on salespersons' adoption of sales
force automation technologies: An empirical investigation.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1088–1096.
Chakrabarty, S., Brown, G., & Widing, R. E. (2012). The role of top
management in developing a customer-oriented sales force.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(4), 437–449.
Chen, A., Peng, N., & Hung, K. P. (2015). Managing salespeople strate-
gically when promoting new products–incorporating market orien-
tation into a sales management control framework. Industrial
Marketing Management, 51,141–149.
Cooper, B., & Glaesser, J. (2011). Using case-based approaches to ana-
lyse large datasets: A comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and fuzzy clus-
ter analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
14(1), 31–48.
Cuevas, J. M. (2018). The transformation of professional selling:
Implications for leading the modern sales organization. Industrial
Marketing Management, 69,198–208.
Doty, D. H., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and
organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250.
Eggert, A., Hogreve, J., Ulaga, W., & Münkhoff, E. (2014). Revenue and
profit implications of industrial service strategies.Journal of Service
Research, 17(1), 23–39.
Fiss, P. C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organizational configura-
tions. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198.
Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzyset approach to
typologies in organizational research. Academy of Management
Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
Fiss, P. C., Sharapov, D., & Cronqvist, L. (2013). Opposites attract?
Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and
econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 191–
198.
Forkmann, S., Henneberg, S. C., Witell, L., & Kindström, D. (2017).
Driver configurations for successful service infusion. Journal of
Service Research, 20(3), 275–291.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statis-
tics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,382–388.
Franke, G. R., & Park, J. E. (2006). Salesperson adaptive selling behavior
and customer orientation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing
Research, 43(4), 693–702.
Friend, S., & Malshe, A. (2016). Key skills for crafting customer solu-
tions within an ecosystem: A theories-in-use perspective. Journal of
Service Research, 19(2), 174–191.
Frösén, J., Luoma, J., Jaakkola, M., Tikkanen, H., & Aspara, J. (2016).
What counts versus what can be counted: The complex interplay of
market orientation and marketing performance measurement.
JournalofMarketing,80(3), 60–78.
Fu, F. Q., Jones, E., & Bolander, W. (2008). Product innovativeness,
customer newness, and new product performance: a time-lagged
examination of the impact of salesperson selling intentions on new
product performance. JournalofPersonalSelling&Sales
Management, 28(4), 351–364.
Fu, F. Q., Richards, K. A., & Jones, E. (2009). The motivation hub: Effects of
goal setting and self-efficacy on effort and new product sales. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 277–292.
Fu,F.Q.,Richards,K.A.,Hughes,D.E.,&Jones,E.(2010).Motivating
salespeople to sell new products: The relative influence of attitudes,
subjective norms, and self-efficacy. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 61–76.
Grant, E. S., & Bush, A. J. (1996). Salesforce socialization tactics:
Building organizational value congruence. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 16(3), 17–32.
Guido, P. (2012). How we got beyond selling products. Harvard
Business Review, 90(7/8), 107–108.
Hartmann, N. N., Wieland, H., & Vargo, S. L. (2018). Converging on a new
theoretical Foundation for Selling. Journal of Marketing, 82(2), 1–18.
Hayati, B., Atefi, Y., & Ahearne, M. (2018). Salesforce leadership during
strategy implementation: A social network perspective. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(4), 612–631.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Bornemann, T. (2009). Implementing the
marketing concept at the employee–customer interface: The role of
customer need knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 64–81.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Kühnl, C. (2010). Social influence on sales-
people’s adoption of sales technology: A multilevel analysis.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 159–168.
Hunter, G. K., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2015). Commitment to techno-
logical change, sales force intelligence norms, and salesperson key
outcomes. Industrial Marketing Management, 50,162–179.
Jelinek, R., Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Schillewaert, N. (2006). A lon-
gitudinal examination of individual, organizational, and contextual
factors on sales technology adoption and job performance. Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(1), 7–23.
Johnson, J. S., & Sohi, R. S. (2017). Getting business-to-business sales-
people to implement strategies associated with introducing new
products and services. Industrial Marketing Management, 62,
137–149.
Jones, E., Sundaram, S., & Chin, W. (2002). Factors leading to sales force
automation use: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of personal selling
& sales management, 22(3), 145–156.

Kauppila, O. P., Rajala, R., & Jyrämä, A. (2010). Antecedents of sales-
people's reluctance to sell radically new products. Industrial
Marketing Management, 39(2), 308-316.
Keränen, J., & Liozu, S. (2020). Value champions in business markets:
Four role configurations. Industrial Marketing Management, 85,
84–96.
Koponen, J., Julkunen, S., & Asai, A. (2019). Sales communication com-
petence in international B2B solution selling. Industrial Marketing
Management, 82,238–252.
Kraus, S., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Schüssler, M. (2018). Fuzzy-set qual-
itative comparative analysis (fsQCA) in entrepreneurship and inno-
vation research –Theriseofamethod.International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14,15–33.
Lam, S. K., Kraus, F., & Ahearne, M. (2010). The dif</