| Course | GB533 Salesforce Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Sales force structure analysis |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB533 Unit 2
By Territory, by Product or by Account Type: A Unit 2 Sales Force Structure Analysis for a Dental Distributor
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB533: Salesforce Management
Unit 2 Sales Force Structure Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The distributor, its customers and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
The Situation
Palmetto Dental Supply sells consumables, equipment and digital imaging systems to dental practices across North and South Carolina. Twelve representatives each sell everything within a territory. Two changes are pressing on that structure.
Dental service organizations. Nine organizations now own about 240 of the offices Palmetto serves and buy supplies centrally, through contracts negotiated at headquarters. A territory representative who calls on one of their offices has little influence over what it buys.
More technical equipment. Equipment sales increasingly involve intraoral scanners and cone beam imaging units, which require knowledge of software, integration with practice systems and training. Many generalists are comfortable selling chairs and sterilizers but not imaging systems.
Last spring, Palmetto piloted product-line specialists in the Upstate territory around Greenville. Equipment sales there rose modestly, but practices complained about multiple contacts and unclear ownership, as one office manager's account in the Unit 1 discussion made plain.
The Three Options
Option A: By territory. Keep generalists, each responsible for all products and accounts in a geography, but add representatives so each territory can be covered. The workload analysis in Unit 3 suggests about fifteen.
Option B: By product line. Organize by consumables, equipment and digital imaging, with specialists for each covering wider areas: about six consumables representatives, five equipment specialists and four imaging consultants.
Option C: By account type. Create a key account team for dental service organizations and keep territory representatives for independent practices: about thirteen practice representatives and two key account managers.
Exhibit 1: The Comparison Matrix
Each option is rated on five criteria, from strong to weak.
Customer coverage and single point of contact. A strong: each practice has one representative. B weak: practices deal with two or three. C strong for independents, strong for organizations through a key account manager.
Product expertise for equipment and imaging. A weak: generalists vary widely. B strong. C weak to moderate.
Fit with centralized buying by dental organizations. A weak: no one negotiates at headquarters. B weak. C strong.
Annual cost of sellers at target pay. A about $1.77 million for fifteen representatives. B about $1.88 million for fifteen specialists at slightly higher pay. C about $1.81 million.
Coordination burden. A low. B high: three sellers for each practice must coordinate. C moderate: key account contracts must be honored by territory representatives serving those offices.
No single option is strong on both product expertise and centralized buying, the two pressures that prompted the review.
Reading the Matrix
Option A preserves what customers value, one representative who knows the practice, but fails on both new pressures. Option B solves the expertise problem at the cost of the customer experience the Upstate pilot exposed. Option C solves the organization problem but leaves equipment and imaging expertise thin.
Zoltners et al. (2004) argue that sales force structure should follow the buying process, and that companies often need different structures for different customer groups. Palmetto has two distinct buying processes: independent practices buy through a relationship with a representative, while dental organizations buy through contracts. It also has a product line whose most complex part needs specialist support on a minority of calls.
The Recommendation: A Hybrid
Fifteen territory generalists own the relationship with every independent practice and sell consumables and standard equipment.
Three equipment and imaging specialists work as an overlay, joining territory representatives on qualified scanner and imaging opportunities. They do not own accounts.
Two key account managers negotiate and manage contracts with the nine dental organizations, while territory representatives serve those offices day to day under the contracts.
Total sellers: twenty. At target pay, about $1.77 million for generalists, about $0.41 million for specialists and about $0.28 million for key account managers, about $2.45 million in all.
Why the Hybrid Is Worth Its Cost
The hybrid costs about $680,000 more a year than Option A. It must earn that through equipment growth and retention of dental organization business. Equipment and imaging sales were about $7.5 million last year; if specialist support raised closing rates enough to add about 15 percent, at a gross margin near 30 percent that would contribute about $340,000. Keeping the dental organizations' consumables business, about $9 million a year, against competitors offering central contracts is worth more: losing even a quarter of it would cost about $700,000 of gross margin. Johnston and Marshall (2016) note that the costs of a sales structure must be weighed against the revenue at risk from the wrong one, and here the larger risk is doing nothing about centralized buying.
Rules That Make the Hybrid Work
Account ownership. Every independent practice has one territory representative who owns the relationship, approves specialist visits and is credited with all sales to the practice.
Specialist engagement. A specialist joins only when the territory representative has qualified an opportunity, meaning the practice has a stated need, a budget conversation and a decision timeline. Specialists are measured on the equipment and imaging revenue they help close, shared with the territory representative.
Dental organizations. Key account managers own the contract and the relationship at headquarters. Territory representatives serve the offices, are credited for consumables sales under the contract and report any problems to the key account manager.
Ledingham et al. (2006) found that sales productivity improves when companies segment customers by their needs and match coverage to each segment's value, rather than applying one coverage model to everyone. The rules above put that into practice for Palmetto's three kinds of selling.
Risks
The overlay can recreate the Upstate pilot's confusion unless rules are clear: the territory representative owns the account and decides when to bring in a specialist. Key account contracts can frustrate territory representatives whose offices buy at negotiated prices; their pay must credit those sales. And twenty sellers require a sales manager with time to coach them, which the compensation and training units address.
Next Steps
The workload analysis in Unit 3 will test whether fifteen territories are the right number, and the territory design in Unit 4 will draw their boundaries. The compensation plan in Unit 5 must then reward each of the three roles for the behavior the hybrid needs, especially the territory representative's decision to bring in a specialist rather than attempt a complex sale alone.
References
Johnston, M. W., & Marshall, G. W. (2016). Sales force management: Leadership, innovation, technology (12th ed.). Routledge.
Ledingham, D., Kovac, M., & Simon, H. L. (2006). The new science of sales force productivity. Harvard Business Review, 84(9), 124-133.
Zoltners, A. A., Sinha, P., & Lorimer, S. E. (2004). Sales force design for strategic advantage. Palgrave Macmillan.
The Purdue Global GB533 Unit 2 instructions
GB533 Unit 2 asks you to analyze alternative structures for a sales force and recommend one. Describe the current structure and the pressures on it, with figures. Set out at least three options, including the number of sellers each requires. Compare them in a matrix on criteria such as customer coverage, product expertise, fit with how major customers buy, cost and coordination burden. Read the matrix to explain why an option wins or why none does. Recommend a structure, including any hybrid, with rules that make it work, and justify its cost against the revenue at stake. Close with risks and next steps. Expect about seven pages built around a comparison matrix, citing sales management sources in APA 7.
How this GB533 Unit 2 example is built
The analysis describes twelve generalists, central buying by dental organizations and more technical imaging equipment, and notes the Upstate product-line pilot. Options A, B and C are set out with seller counts. Exhibit 1 rates them on five criteria, including annual cost from about $1.77 million to $1.88 million, and the highlighted sentence shows that none meets both pressures. Zoltners, Sinha and Lorimer support matching structure to buying processes. The hybrid of fifteen generalists, three specialists and two key account managers is priced at about $2.45 million and justified by equipment growth and retained organization business, citing Johnston and Marshall. Ownership and engagement rules cite Ledingham and colleagues, and risks close it.
Reading the GB533 Unit 2 grading rubric
Structure analyses in GB533 are judged on whether the options are priced and whether the recommendation answers the pressures that prompted the review. Describing the current force and the pressures with figures earns early credit. Options that specify headcount allow comparison. A matrix with consistent criteria carries significant weight. Reading the matrix to show that no single option works, rather than forcing a winner, shows judgment. A hybrid with written ownership and engagement rules shows practical design. Justifying added cost against revenue at risk shows financial sense. Risks and next steps complete it. Zoltners and colleagues, Johnston and Marshall, and Ledingham and colleagues form the analysis's APA 7 list.
GB533 Unit 2 help from the desk
Many GB533 Unit 2 analyses describe territory, product and customer structures from the textbook and pick one without pricing any. Others recommend a hybrid as a compromise without saying who owns which account. A frequent gap is the pressure: a structure should be judged against the specific changes forcing the review, here central buying and technical equipment. Some writers ignore evidence from a pilot. Describe the current force and pressures, set out priced options, compare them in a matrix, explain the reading, recommend with rules, justify the cost and name the risks. Writing ownership rules for an overlay is what keeps a hybrid from recreating the confusion a pilot exposed.
Get a GB533 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
How are the representatives in your GB533 case organized today, and what does the firm sell? Include both, plus the Unit 2 prompt and rubric. Every structure in the custom analysis is scored on the same criteria before a recommendation is made, and a rule for overlapping roles is included. Returned in 24-48h; the first one costs nothing. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB533 papers and MBA samples
- GB533 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB533 Unit 3: Workload Sizing Model
- GB533 Unit 4: Territory Design Plan
- GB533 Unit 5: Compensation Plan Proposal
- GB533 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB533 Unit 7: Sales Training Outline
- GB533 Unit 8: Performance Evaluation Memo
- GB533 Unit 9: Pipeline Forecast
- GB533 Unit 10: Sales Management Report
- GB532 Unit 2: Problem Definition Memo
- GB531 Unit 2: Advertising Objectives Memo
- GB530 Unit 2: Situation Analysis
- GB528 Unit 2: Industry Analysis
GB533 Unit 2 questions, answered
Is a hybrid structure a weak answer?
Not if it is argued. Most real sales forces combine bases, such as territories for smaller accounts and dedicated managers for large ones. What weakens a hybrid is proposing it to avoid choosing. Show which parts of each pure structure it borrows, what problem each part solves, and what new coordination cost the combination creates.
How do I estimate travel costs without real data?
Build a simple estimate and state the assumptions: accounts per county, average distance between calls, a mileage rate and the number of representatives who would cover each area. Published federal mileage rates give a defensible per-mile figure. Graders are usually checking whether travel was considered and compared across options, not whether your estimate matches a real fleet log.
Should the analysis include an organization chart?
Where a new structure is recommended, a simple chart helps a reader see reporting lines and spans of control at a glance. Keep it to roles and counts rather than names. Some GB533 sections require one; in others it is optional but tends to strengthen the recommendation by making it concrete.
Where can I find a free GB533 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries a full GB533 Unit 2 sales force structure analysis for a dental distributor, with three priced options, a comparison matrix, a hybrid recommendation with rules, and APA 7 references.
Is a hybrid structure a compromise?
Not when each part answers a different buying process. Generalists serve independent practices, specialists support complex equipment sales and key account managers handle central contracts, with clear rules on who owns each account.