Sells and selling

Sales people are particularly vulnerable to moral corruption

The depiction of sales person as deceitful charlatans concerned only with closing sales and earning commissions

does little to enhance the professional image of the career and the majority of its practitioners deserve. Unfortunately we have regrettable experiences with salespersons such as those described in the opening vignettes. The historically negative stereotype of salespersons is however changing as many people begin to understand the key role that salesperson play in the economy. Yet, many companies still discourage the term salespersons from being printed on the business cards of their sales staff, preferring labels such as ‘client advisor’, ‘marketing representative’ or ‘business consultant’ to describe the sales functions.

Salespersons, it seem are especially vulnerable to moral corruption because they are subject to many temptations. In particular; because of the interpersonal nature of their work, they are exposed to greater ethical pressures than individuals in many other jobs; also because they work in relatively unsupervised settings; they are primarily responsible for generating the firms’ revenue, which at all times can be very stressful; they are regularly assessed in view of the transient goals.

There is consensual view across business disciplines that ethical sales behavior plays a significant role in determining financial performance, long-term viability and customer retention (Roman &Munuera, 2005; Roman & Ruiz, 205; Grisaffe& Jaramillo, 2007).

A typology of unethical sales behavior

According to Román and Ruiz (2005), ethical behavior in the sales relationship context denotes behaviors on the part of the salesperson that advance the welfare of the client.

Nevertheless, Román and Munuera (2005) defined ethical sales as conduct reasonable and legitimate activities that empower the sales representative to encourage long pull relationship with customers in perspective of shopper reliability and trust. Ethical sales behavior is an exceedingly subtle development and is frequently circumstance particular (Lagace et al., 1991).Be that as it may, unethical sales behavior as perceived by the customer is characterized as a short-run salesperson’s conduct that empowers him/her to gain at the expense of thecustomer for example, overstating about the advantages of an item/benefit, accessibility, the opposition and so on.

Examples of the standards they should strive towards to ensure ethical sales behavior

Salespersons should be able to help their customers make purchase decisions that will satisfy their needs and long-term satisfaction from a strong ethical perspective.

Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that trust and duty are both key to anticipating trade execution.Trust among the sales persons and the sales system is one of the most essential goals in the regulation and supervision of the sales markets (Masciandro et al., 2007; Grunbichler and Darlap, 2003; Hasan and Severiens, 2001).

Moreover, in the relationship advertising writing the idea of duty assumes a focal part, as it is a noteworthy normal for relationship promoting models (Alrubaiee&Alnazer, 2010). Commitment is the center of all fruitful working connections and that it is a fundamental ingredient in effective long haul connections (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Commitment has been operationalized in several ways, including craving to proceed with the relationship, ability to make transient penances, trust in the solidness of the relationship, and interests in the relationship (Kim & Frazier, 1997).

Thirdly, Customer loyalty is regarded as the commitment to rebuy a preferred product or service in the future despite there are situational influence and marketing efforts (Yim et al. 2008). Loyal customers may not be constantly fulfilled, but rather fulfilled clients are well-suited to be loyal (Fornell, 1992).


Alrubaiee, Laith. “Exploring the Relationship between ethical sales behavior, relationship quality, and customer loyalty.”International Journal of Marketing Studies 4.1 (2012): 7.