Peer Evaluations for Extended Group Projects for a Sales

Georgia Southern University Georgia Southern University

Georgia Southern Commons Georgia Southern Commons

Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings

1-1-2019

Peer Evaluations for Extended Group Projects for a Sales Peer Evaluations for Extended Group Projects for a Sales

Management Course Management Course

Joseph Chapman

Ball State University

, [email protected]

Russell G. Wahlers

Ball State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp-

proceedings_2019

Part of the Marketing Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Chapman, Joseph and Wahlers, Russell G., "Peer Evaluations for Extended Group Projects for a Sales

Management Course" (2019).

Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings 2019

. 51.

https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/amtp-proceedings_2019/51

This conference proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Association of Marketing Theory and

Practice Proceedings at Georgia Southern Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Association of

Marketing Theory and Practice Proceedings 2019 by an authorized administrator of Georgia Southern Commons.

For more information, please contact [email protected].

Peer Evaluations for Extended Group Projects for a Sales

Management Course

Joseph D. Chapman

Ball State University

Russell G. Wahlers

Ball State University

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an evaluation process that has work well for two extended group projects in

a sales management course. Students help develop the peer evaluation instrument, submit

several peer evaluations over the course of each project, and are required to fill out each form

completely and submit the forms on assigned due dates. Students lose points on their individual

project scores for not following the evaluation process guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

Given the importance of learning how to work with others for almost any organizational setting,

it is beneficial to provide group work activities in the classroom setting. Professors that

incorporate group projects in their classes are faced with the dilemma of how to effectively

evaluate the contributions of the individual students in each group. In her review of the literature,

Baker (2008) concluded that peer evaluations are needed to ensure that the grading process is fair

and can also provide students with useful feedback for improved performance. In fact, several

authors have suggested the need for effective peer evaluations to help improve student

performance, to aid in providing a fair individual grading process, and to try to reduce or

eliminate the number of social loafers (Dommeyer 2012; Wagar and Carroll 2012; Kim 2011;

Brutus and Donia 2010; Poddar 2010; and Pettinga and Flatto 2010). Based on the need of

effective methods for evaluating student performance on group projects, this paper presents a

peer evaluation process that is effective for longer group projects that cover several weeks of a

semester. This process has been used for several years by a professor teaching sales management

at a mid-western University in the United States.

THE GROUP PROJECTS

The professor (author) assigns two group projects in his sales management classes that last for

several weeks over the course of the semester. One project is the MARS Sales Management

Simulation. For the MARS simulation, students are divided into groups of four students per

group. If it doesn’t work out for all groups to have four students, the students will be divided so

remaining groups have three students. Each student group represents a district management team

that manages five sales representatives (reps). Each student management team competes against

the other teams in the class by making several decisions to try to motivate their sales reps and

satisfy the sales reps’ customers. The management teams make decisions in the following areas:

salary dollars, commission rates, bonus dollars, sales volume quotas, percent of time supervising

each rep, percent of time reps spend with A, B, C accounts, sales rep training, recognition, and

sales contests. The better the mix of decisions for each team’s reps, the better the sales reps

perform. Each management team makes the above decisions on a quarterly basis for five years;

therefore, each management team makes a total of 20 quarterly decisions for the MARS project.

Two quarterly decisions are made per week of the semester; therefore, the MARS simulation

project covers 10 weeks of the semester.

The second group project in the author’s sales management class is a final report based on the

MARS simulation. Students are required to prepare a final report detailing how their company

and sales reps performed compared to the other companies. The report includes five annual

summary sections for the five years of the simulation, a section detailing how the management

team made each of the decisions for their sales reps, and a section where each manager in the

management team provides feedback on the MARS simulation as a learning tool. Each

management team report includes over thirty tables of data to aid in the comparative analysis.

Students begin working on the year one summary for the report as soon as the year one results

are available to the students (i.e. two weeks into the MARS simulation), and students have

approximately 10 weeks to complete the report. The report normally ranges between 35 to 45

pages in length.

DEVELOPING THE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT

In Sales Management courses, professors discuss how sales managers evaluate sales reps. Sales

managers do not, and should not, use sales volume as the only measure of sales performance.

Using only sales volume can lead to unfair comparisons among sales reps due to different

experience levels and/or different territory sales potentials. Therefore, in most business to

business sales situations, sales managers will use other items such as percent of quota, activity

quotas (e.g. average number of calls per day, percentage of calls on A accounts, percentage of

callbacks on A accounts, number of products discussed per call), application of sales techniques

(e.g. effective opening, assessing needs, presentation, handling objections, closing) and a variety

of personality elements (e.g. attitude, punctuality, enthusiasm, initiative, self-motivation). Not

only should a sales manager give each sales rep a rating for each evaluation item, but the

manager should also provide feedback on the basis for the rating received for each item.

Based on a discussion with students on how to develop an effective evaluation instrument, the

professor uses part of a class period to work with the sales management students to develop

effective evaluation instruments for the two class projects. The process begins with the professor

asking students what items they believe are important for group success when working on a

group project. The list of items is typed in the computer and projected on a screen for all students

to see. The items on the list are discussed in more detail and some items are eliminated based on

similarity to other items. The resulting peer evaluation instrument is presented in Appendix A.

Please note, the evaluation instrument contains ten items which are rated on an eleven-point

scale ranging from 5.0 for poor, 7.5 for average, and 10.0 for excellent. This rating scale makes it

easier for students when rating each of their group members because the totals for each manager

are based on 100 points; therefore, it is just like grading scales the students have been exposed to

for most of their educational careers. At the bottom of the evaluation form, students are

instructed to provide written feedback for each manager in the group on the back of the form to

help explain the ratings assigned to each manager. Once the evaluation form was finalized for the

MARS simulation group project, the professor uses the same process to create an evaluation

instrument for the final report. As shown in Appendix B, this process resulted in an evaluation

instrument very similar to the evaluation instrument created for the MARS simulation project.

THE PEER EVALUATION PROCESS

Once the evaluation instruments are created for both projects, the author explains the evaluation

process to the sales management students. For the MARS simulation project, students are

informed that they will complete six evaluation forms over the course of the simulation project.

One evaluation form for each of the five years of the MARS simulation. Therefore, with two

quarterly decisions in a week, students submit a peer evaluation form every two weeks during the

project. The forms are due the next class period following each fourth quarter decision. The

forms are labelled as Year 1, Year 2, etc., so that students know which form to submit on the

corresponding due date. The sixth evaluation form is an “overall project” peer evaluation where

students indicate how they feel each student in their group performed over the course of the

entire MARS simulation project. For the final report group project, students are informed that

they will complete four peer evaluations over the course of the project which are labelled Eval

#1, Eval #2, Eval #3, and Overall Project. The evaluations for the final report are assigned due

dates by the professor which are approximately every three weeks once the final report project

begins. Therefore, for both group projects combined, students are required to submit ten peer

evaluations over the course of the semester.

Students are informed that the peer evaluations are completely confidential and should not be

shared with any other students. The author emphasizes the confidentiality of the process to help

encourage honest feedback on the peer evaluation forms. Students are also informed that the

evaluation forms are to be completed before entering the classroom on the due dates and that

there is a penalty for working on peer evaluations in class (a 3-point deduction from the student’s

individual project grade for each instance). Again, this is done to help maintain the

confidentiality of the process. Students can submit each evaluation form on or before the due

date by handing the form to the professor before class begins, sliding the form under the

professor’s office door, or by handing the form to the department secretary to have it placed in

the professor’s mailbox. Students cannot have another student submit peer evaluations for them.

The form must be submitted by each individual student.

Students are also informed that once the professor has the first set of evaluations (two weeks into

the project) for the MARS simulation, each group’s set of evaluations is reviewed to see if there

are any concerns about students not pulling their weight. If there are concerns noticed, the

professor discusses the concerns with the entire class to let students know there are issues. Once

the professor receives the second set of peer evaluations for the MARS simulation (four weeks

into the project), the professor reviews each group’s set of evaluations for concerns. If the

professor notices continued issues with a student’s participation in a group, the professor will

meet with those specific groups to discuss the importance of everyone contributing to the project.

The professor speaks to the group as a whole without specifically indicating which student(s) are

not contributing. If there is still an issue with a student after the third set of peer evaluations are

collected (2 or 3 sets of poor evaluations from their group), those students not pulling their

weight will receive a warning letter from the regional manager’s office (the professor). The

warning letter indicates that the student in question has the final two evaluation periods to

improve his/her performance or will be fired from the group. A student receiving the warning

letter is told not to discuss the letter with his/her group and to continue to work with the group in

a professional manner. Failure to work in a professional manner after receiving a warning letter

results in immediate expulsion from the group. If a student is fired from the group, that student is

required to complete the final report project alone (which is a time-consuming task). The same

type of process is followed for submitting and reviewing the peer evaluations for the final report.

The entire peer evaluation process described above is shared with the entire sales management

class right after completion of the evaluation instruments and before the project begins.

PEER EVALUATION IMPACT ON GRADING PROCESS

The professor assigns a grade for each of the above projects for each sales management group.

However, the group evaluation process can have a positive or negative impact on each individual

student’s grade. Adjustments made to individual students’ grades are as follows:

• Submitting the Wrong Evaluation Form (-2 point each)

• Submitting a Late Evaluation Form (-2 point each)

• Submitting an Incomplete Evaluation Form (-2 point each)

• Submitting an Evaluation Form more than two weeks after the due date (-4 points

each)

• Working on a group evaluation form in the classroom (-3 points each instance)

• Not submitting an Evaluation Form (-5 points each)

• Group Evaluation Ratings (+/- points, points depend on contributions compared to

group members based on all group evaluations collected)

In the MARS simulation, the students play the role of District Managers while the professor

plays the role of the Regional Manager. In class, the professor emphasizes the importance of

District Managers reporting to upper management in a timely manner. District Managers must

complete and submit paperwork to upper management and meet the deadlines set by upper

management. Failure to submit the paperwork or to meet the deadlines typically will have

negative consequences when the District Manager is being evaluated by upper management. The

professor uses this evaluation process as an example of the importance of the student District

Managers completing the peer evaluation forms accurately and submitting the forms on time. If

the student District Managers do not submit the forms on time and accurately, they lose points on

their projects. In other words, there are negative consequences.

The professor also makes it clear that students can earn additional points on their individual

grades if they are rated as being a top contributor or group leader for the project or can lose

points on their individual grade if the peer evaluations indicate they did not contribute as much

as other group members. For example, if the group evaluations clearly indicate that two group

members did more work that the other two members in the group, the professor will add points to

the two top contributors and subtract points from the bottom two contributors. The amount of

points added or deducted is at the discretion of the professor based on the feedback of all the peer

evaluations collected from all group members for each project. Therefore, since there are 6

evaluations for the MARS project, the professor considers the feedback on 24 peer evaluation

forms from a four-member student group when adjusting individual grades for the MARS

simulation project. Since there are 4 peer evaluations for the final report project, there are 16

peer evaluation forms for each student group for the professor to review for the final report group

project for 4-member student groups.

SUMMARY

This paper presents an effective method for conducting peer evaluations over the course of

lengthy group projects. The evaluation process is designed to give the professor feedback on

areas of group work that need improvement for specific students. The process is also designed to

get more accurate and honest feedback; therefore, making the assignment of individual grades

more efficient for the professor. Finally, the evaluation process is also designed to reduce social

loafing due to the possibility of a student being fired by his/her group.

REFERENCES

Baker, Diane F. (2008), “Peer Assessment in Small Groups: A Comparison of Methods,”

Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 183-209.

Brutus, Stephanie and Magda B. L. Donia (2010), “Improving the Effectiveness of Students in

Groups with a Centralized Peer Evaluation System,” Academy of Management Learning and

Education, vol. 9, no. 4, pp.652-662.

Dommeyer, Curt J. (2012), “A New Strategy for Dealing with Social Loafers on the Group

Project: The Segment Manager Method,” Journal of Marketing Education, vol. 34, no. 2, pp.

113-127.

Kim, Jooyoung (2011), “Quality of work and Team Spirit as Drivers of Student Peer Evaluation

on Advertising Group Project Performance,” Journal of Advertising Education, vol. 15, no. 2,

pp. 14-24.

Pettinga, Deidre M and Jerry Flatto (2010), “Using Personality Profiling to Create Project

Teams,” Marketing Management Association Annual Conference Proceedings, pp. 12-18.

Poddar, Amit (2010), “Continuous Additive Peer Review: A New System to Control Social

Loafing in Group Projects,” Journal for the Advancement of Marketing Education, vol. 17, pp. 1-

12.

Wagar, Terry H. and Wendy R. Carroll (2012), “Examining Student Preferences of Group Work

Evaluation Approaches: Evidence from Business Management Undergraduate Students,”

Journal of Education for Business, vol.87, no. 6, pp. 358-362.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joe Chapman, a professor in the Marketing Department at Ball State University, earned his

doctorate from Virginia Polytechnic and State University (Virginia Tech). He joined the Ball

State faculty in 1987. Dr. Chapman’s teaching focuses on professional selling, sales

management, and marketing principles. He was instrumental in the establishment and growth of

Ball State’s nationally recognized sales program. The sales program has been listed as one of the

nation’s best by several national publications. Chapman has published research in several well-

known business journals including the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, the

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, the Review of Business, the Journal of the

International Society of Business Disciplines, the Journal of Business and Society, the Marketing

and Management Journal, and the Marketing Education Review. Chapman is an experienced

business consultant. His consulting has focused on sales training, sales rep selection, and

customer and employee satisfaction.

Russell Wahlers is the chairman of the Marketing Department at Ball State University. He joined

the Ball State faculty in 1989. He received his DBA (1981) degree from Kent State University.

Prior to joining the Ball State faculty, he taught at the University of Notre Dame, John Carroll

University, and Kent State University. Dr. Wahlers' industry experience includes assignments at

The BFGoodrich Engineered Systems Company in Market Research, Business Planning, and

Corporate Purchasing. His teaching interests are in the areas of Consumer Behavior and

Marketing Simulation. He has had articles published in the Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, Advances in Consumer Research, International Journal of Retailing and Distribution

Management, Journal of Leisure Research, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Professional

Services Marketing, Review of Business, and Marketing Intelligence and Planning.

Appendix A

Peer Evaluation Instrument for the MARS Simulation

Simulation District Manager Group Evaluation Form Year 1

Evaluator: __________________________________ Date: __________

Company: __________________________________

PERFECT AVG POOR

Scale

9.5

8.5

7.5

6.5

5.5

Manager Names:

(including yourself)

Evaluation Items

Rating

Attendance at meetings

Promptness to meetings

Preparation for meetings

Quantity of work on decisions

Quality of work on decisions

Attitude toward other managers

Attitude toward project

Leadership

Communication with managers

Cooperativeness

Ratings Total

Comments to support these ratings MUST be provided for each manager on the back of this

page!

Appendix B

Peer Evaluation Instrument for the Final Report

Final Report Group Evaluation Form Eval #1

Evaluator: __________________________________ Date: __________

Company: __________________________________

PERFECT AVG POOR

Scale

9.5

8.5

7.5

6.5

5.5

Manager Names:

(including yourself)

Evaluation Items

Rating

Attendance at meetings

Promptness to meetings

Preparation for meetings

Quantity of work on report

Quality of work on report

Attitude toward other managers

Attitude toward project

Leadership

Communication with managers

Cooperativeness

Ratings Total

Comments to support these ratings MUST be provided for each manager on the back of this

page!