Download Sales and Marketing Integration

SALES AND MARKETING INTEGRATION: A PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
Dominique Rouziès, Erin Anderson, Ajay K. Kohli, Ronald E. Michaels, Barton A. Weitz, and Andris A. Zoltners
In this paper, we identify sales and marketing activities and common impediments to their integration. We then discuss
the concept of sales–marketing integration and distinguish it from related concepts such as involvement and communication. Following this, we discuss approaches businesses can use to improve sales–marketing integration as well as their
potential costs and drawbacks. The paper concludes with a set of propositions identifying the conditions under which
sales–marketing integration has the greatest impact on firm performance.
In response to increased competitive pressures, shortening
product life cycles, and heightened customer demands, businesses are increasing their ability to effectively adapt and build
competitive advantage by going horizontal—by flattening
their organizations, breaking down barriers between functions,
and stimulating more teamwork between functional areas. In
a marketing context, this organizational trend is reflected in
the growing interest in integrated marketing communications
(IMC). IMC emphasizes the value of coordinating marketing communications activities—advertising, direct response,
Web sites, sales promotion, and publicity. However, these IMC
coordination efforts within marketing largely ignore the most
Dominique Rouziès (Ph.D., McGill University, Canada), Professor of Marketing, HEC School of Management, Paris (GREGHEC),
[email protected].
Erin Anderson (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles), John
H. Loudon Professor of International Management and Professor
of Marketing, INSEAD, [email protected].
Ajay K. Kohli (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh), Isaac Stiles Hopkins
Professor of Marketing, Goizueta Business School, Emory University, [email protected].
Ronald E. Michaels (Ph.D., Indiana University), Professor of Marketing and Marketing Department Chair, College of Business Administration, University of Central Florida, ronald.michaels@
bus.ucf.edu.
Barton A. Weitz (Ph.D., Stanford University), Professor of Marketing and J.C. Penney Eminent Scholar, and Executive Director of
the David F. Miller Center for Retailing Education and Research,
Warrington College of Business, University of Florida, bart.weitz@
cba.ufl.edu.
Andris A. Zoltners (Ph.D., Carnegie Mellon University), Founder
and Co-Chairman, ZS Associates, Professor of Marketing, Kellogg
School of Management, Northwestern University, andy.zoltners@
zsassociates.com.
The first author thanks L’Oréal (France) for providing support for
this research.
significant marketing tool for communicating and influencing relationships with customers—the company’s sales force.
Clearly, coordinating the sales and marketing functions can
improve the effectiveness of activities undertaken by the functional areas. The Venn diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the need
for interaction between sales and marketing. The activities in
the circle on the left are primarily undertaken by the marketing function with input from sales, and the activities in the
circle on the right are primarily undertaken by the sales function with input from marketing. The activities in the intersection of the two circles can be performed effectively only
through a coordinated effort between sales and marketing.
Thus, all of the activities shown in Figure 1 require some
level of interaction between sales and marketing.
Managers recognize this need for greater coordination between marketing and sales. In international surveys of senior
executives from a wide range of business-to-business industries, sales and marketing integration was mentioned as one
of the organizational changes that would do the most to improve sales performance and as one of the most important
issues facing sales and marketing managers (Miller and Gist
2003; Rouziès 2004). Marketing research has examined the
relationship between marketing and other functional areas
(e.g., research and development, engineering, design, and
manufacturing) to successfully develop and launch new products (e.g., Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski 1997; Olson, Walker,
and Ruekert 1995; Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss 2001).
However, research on the sales–marketing interface is limited. Notable exceptions include Cepedes (1996); Dewsnap
and Jobber (2000); Strahle, Spiro, and Acito (1996); and
Workman, Homburg, and Gruner (1998).
Marketing and sales integration is one of the components
of market-driven organizations. Narver and Slater (1990) and
Slater and Narver (1994) have conceptualized market orientation as consisting of three components—customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination.
Likewise, Day, describing market-driven organizations, emphasizes “the cross-functional coordination and information
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXV, no. 2 (spring 2005), pp. 113–122.
© 2005 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00.
114 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 1
Example of Sales and Marketing Tasks Integration
Source: Zoltners (2004).
sharing required to work collaboratively with customers.”
Further, he notes that “firms that have developed a distinctive
capability for managing collaborative relationships find they
have more integrated strategies” (1994, p. 45).
The objectives of this paper are to identify the impediments to an effective sales–marketing integration, the approaches that firms can use to overcome these obstacles, and
then to propose a framework outlining the conditions under
which an effective sales–marketing integration has its greatest
impact on the performance of firms.
IMPEDIMENTS TO AN EFFECTIVE
SALES–MARKETING INTERFACE
Research and anecdotal evidence indicates that the sales–marketing interface is problematic. For example, in their empirical study of consumer grocery product firms, Strahle, Spiro,
and Acito (1996) found discrepancies between sales and marketing managers with regard to specific product strategies.
The activities for generating sales volume undertaken by sales
managers were inconsistent with the hold, harvest, or divest
product strategy specified by marketing managers. Thus, salespeople were promoting products that marketing did not plan
to support in the long run and failing to adequately promote
products that marketing was supporting. Needless to say, such
a lack of congruence can seriously damage the relationships
that companies have with their customers.
A major impediment to coordinating activities across functional areas is that employees in the functions have different
mind-sets—different perspectives on issues and approaches
for addressing problems (Ancona and Caldwell 1992). Some
of the mind-set differences between sales and marketing employees are:
• Customer versus product—Salespeople are typically responsible for a set of customers in a geographical area
or in a specific industry segment. They promote the
use of a wide range of products and services offered by
their company to these customers. On the other hand,
marketing people (brand and product managers) are
typically responsible for a specific product or brand
and focus on that product to the exclusion of other
products or brands offered by the firm.
Spring 2005 115
•
•
•
•
•
This difference in focus is reinforced by the incentives typically used by firms. The incentives for the
sales force are normally related to sales of all products
made to customers in a territory, whereas the reward
and recognition for product managers are based on
sales and profitability of the specific products for
which they are responsible.
Personal relationships versus analysis—Due to the nature of their jobs, salespeople are more peopleoriented, as they attempt to build relationships with
their customers. They develop strategies for selling to
customers at an individual level (Weitz 1978). Marketing people tend to deal with aggregations of customers and market segments and develop a more
abstract understanding of these customers through
analyzing market research data.
Continuous daily activity versus sporadic projects—Salespeople are continually calling on customers, presenting the firm’s products, and dealing with customer
service issues. Rather than having a daily routine, the
work of marketers is more project oriented—planning
the introduction of a new product, developing a new
advertising campaign, and preparing and executing
the annual marketing plan.
Field versus office—Salespeople face pressures of customer demands and often experience rejection. Moreover, salespeople directly feel the pressure from
quarterly revenue projections provided by corporate
management to Wall Street. Marketers are more removed from these types of high-pressure environments.
Results versus process—Salespeople get relatively quick
feedback on the results of their activities. They either
make the sale or they do not. Their performance is
readily measurable. On the other hand, assessing the
effectiveness of marketing activities is more ambiguous. It is often difficult to assess the effectiveness of
marketing strategies, advertising campaigns, and promotional programs. The effects of some marketing activities, such as changing a brand’s image, develop
over a long period of time. These marketing efforts are
often assessed by examining the process for making
decisions and intermediate outcome such as brand
awareness and brand attitudes.
Short-term versus long-term orientation—Due to the incentives for salespeople and their results orientation,
salespeople often tend to be more short-term–oriented
than marketers. Salespeople focus on month-to-month
and quarter-to-quarter sales, whereas marketing managers concentrate on building long-term competitive
advantage that might take years to realize.
These differences in perspective are presented in Figure 2.
Due to these differences, it is difficult for people in sales
and marketing to understand and appreciate the issues raised
by their counterparts, and these differences impede effective
coordination between the functional areas.
SALES AND MARKETING INTEGRATION
Although functional integration is an important objective in
theories of firm performance, there is no uniform definition
or widely accepted measure of this construct. Kahn and his
colleagues (Kahn 1996, 2001; Kahn and Mentzer 1998) review the literature on interdepartmental integration and identify different approaches for assessing the construct. Some
researchers (e.g., Clark and Fujimoto 1991; Lawrence and
Lorsch 1967) define interdepartmental integration as the degree to which the departments engage in collaborative activities—the degree to which they work together as a team and
share resources to make strategic decisions, develop implementation plans, and assess performance of these strategies
and plans. Other research adopts a multidimensional perspective. For example, Ruekert and Walker (1987) describe marketing’s interactions with other functional units in terms of
exchanges of resources, work, and technical assistance and
the amount and difficulty of communication; Song, Xie, and
Dyer (2000) define integration as involvement, information
quality, and harmony.
We argue that it is important to distinguish the integration construct from related constructs such as interactions,
communications, and involvement. For example, although
increasing communications is likely to result in greater sales–
marketing integration, it is unlikely to do so if the interactions are acrimonious. Further, indiscriminately increasing
communications may lead to information overload that may
reduce rather than increase coordination and collaboration.
We argue that sales–marketing integration is a dynamic
process in which the two functional areas create more value
for their firms by working together than they would create by
working in isolation. We define sales–marketing integration
as the extent to which activities carried out by the two functions (see Figure 1) are supportive of each other. Note that in
order for a function’s activities to be supportive of the other
function’s activities, the two must be consistent and congruent with each other (e.g., lead to realization of each other’s
goals and objectives), and the timing of the activities must be
coordinated (i.e., concurrent or thoughtfully sequenced).
Thus, for example, the timing of a salesperson’s visit to a customer to introduce a new product must be coordinated with
marketing’s launch of the ad campaign for the product. Both
activities are consistent in that they have the same goal, and
they support each other in that each activity makes the other
activity more effective.
116 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Figure 2
Example of Sales and Marketing Comments in a Business-to-Business Context
Marketing says
• “Salespeople ignore corporate branding and positioning and just do their own thing.”
• “We generate leads and create sales support materials that get ignored.”
• “We don’t know what collateral works or what is being used.”
• “We are swamped with sales requests for ad hoc support.”
• “Sales is slow to learn about new products—getting them up to speed takes forever.”
Sales responds
• “The one-size-fits-all corporate message doesn’t help me close orders.”
• “Marketing wouldn’t know a qualified lead if it tripped on one.”
• “We can’t find the sales support materials we need—and when we do, it isn’t targeted to my selling situation.”
Source: Aberdeen Group (2002, p. 4).
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Our conceptual framework, presented in Figure 3, suggests
that a number of managerially controllable actions and policies can be used to improve sales–marketing integration and
subsequent firm performance. In addition, we argue that developing greater sales–marketing integration is more important for business performance in some situations and not as
important in other situations. In the following subsections,
we discuss the four types of mechanisms for improving sales–
marketing integration: (1) structure, (2) process/systems,
(3) culture, and (4) people.
Structure
Some structural approaches for improving sales–marketing
integration are (1) decentralization, (2), cross-functional
teams, and (3) integrators.
Decentralization
Centralization refers to the extent to which decision-making
authority in an organization is located at higher levels of the
organization (Aiken and Hage 1968). Although advantageous
in some ways, centralization of decision making leads to negative effects as well. For example, Menon, Jaworski, and Kohli
(1997) find that centralization reduces connectedness and
increases conflict across functions. In essence, a centralized
organizational structure tends to create a climate of tension,
whereas a decentralized system is likely to induce cross-functional communication or resource exchange.
By one estimate, sales and marketing organizations in 54
percent of firms represent independent silos, each reporting
to its own head and “meeting” or being coordinated at the
top at the CEO or COO level (see also Workman, Homburg,
and Gruner 1998). One way of lowering the level at which
such coordination takes place (i.e., decentralizing the structure) is to have the sales and marketing organizations report
to a single vice president of sales and marketing who reports
to a CEO or COO. In such a structure, the vice president of
sales and marketing has the potential to improve integration
between the sales and marketing functions through his or her
hierarchical authority. Thus,
P1: Decentralization of the sales and marketing functions has a positive effect on the degree of sales–marketing
integration.
Cross-Functional Teams
Another structural approach for improving the sales–marketing interface is to form cross-functional teams composed of
people in the two functional areas. These teams are tasked
with addressing specific issues and performing one or more
of the activities noted in Figure 1. By working together on
these teams, members develop a better appreciation and understanding of the issues and perspectives facing the marketing and sales functions. In addition, by making decisions
jointly as a team, the members feel a sense of ownership in
the decisions and tend to champion the decisions when they
interact with others in their functional area.
However, there are costs associated with the use of crossfunctional teams. The different perspectives of the team members create potential for conflict. Research shows
cross-functional team outcomes do not always yield expected
performance; teams need specific training and rewards to
stimulate cooperation and minimize dysfunctional conflict
Spring 2005 117
Figure 3
A Framework for Sales–Marketing Integration
(Ancona and Caldwell 1992). If this conflict is not managed
constructively, the use of cross-functional teams can actually
have a negative effect on sales–marketing integration. In addition, great care should be used when composing the teams
to include people who are motivated to improve sales–marketing integration (Randel and Jaussi 2003). Thus, we
propose:
P2: The use of cross-functional teams has a positive relationship with sales–marketing integration, provided team
members are trained to manage conflict and are committed to improving sales–marketing integration.
Integrators
The third structural approach for improving sales–marketing
integration is to assign employees to a special integrator role.
For example, market managers might be made responsible
for coordinating marketing and sales activities such as advertising, pricing, and service support directed toward customers in a specific market segment (see Figure 1). They could
facilitate communications from salespeople to marketers and
vice versa. They could perform activities falling under the
purview of both sales and marketing (center column in Figure 1), or appoint task forces to do so. In this way, these market managers would facilitate a marketing-oriented
coordination similar to the technically oriented coordination
provided by application engineers.
Typically, integrators have the responsibility for improving the interaction between functional areas but do not have
the authority to affect the way work is done. Some factors
that enhance the effectiveness of integrators are (Weitz and
Anderson 1981):
• Maintaining a balanced orientation that recognizes
the perspectives and goals of the sales and marketing
functions.
• Providing integrators with the information, responsibility, and conflict management skills necessary for resolving conflicts that develop between sales and
marketing.
• Using unique knowledge and skills as a basis for influence rather than formal authority.
Similar to the use of cross-functional teams, there is a cost–
benefit trade-off in using integrators. Integrators may improve
sales–marketing integration, but their use involves adding
employees, which leads to higher labor costs. Thus, integrators should typically be used to facilitate integration when
complex tasks need to be performed such as the launching of
a new product. We propose that:
P3: Assigning employees to the role of integrators has a positive effect on the degree of sales–marketing integration. Due
to the additional costs involved, this is appropriate when
sales and marketing need to work together to undertake
complex, novel tasks.
118 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Process/System
Some process and system approaches for improving sales–marketing integration are (1) communications, (2) job rotation,
(3) integrated goals, and (4) incentives or reward and recognition systems.
Communications
One of the key drivers of cross-functional integration is communication. However, it is possible for sales and marketing
to overcommunicate. For example, sales and marketing may
communicate so much that it leaves them with little time to
perform their core activities (see Figure 1). In other words,
whereas too little communication may lead to low levels of
integration, too much communication may lead to low levels
of integration as well (see Maltz and Kohli 1996).
Communications between sales and marketing can be formal and informal. Examples of formal communications are
regularly scheduled meeting and reports. Informal communications are unplanned and unverifiable (untraceable after
the fact). The two types of communications have different
properties and, hence, are likely to play different roles in realizing sales–marketing integration.
Studying market intelligence dissemination from marketing to other functions, Maltz and Kohli (1996) suggest an
equal mix of formal and informal communications is optimal. Furthermore, within the context of new product development, Olson, Walker, and Ruekert (1995) show that the
level of formalization of an organization must match levels of
product innovativeness in order to increase performance.
Thus, a less formalized approach (and informal communication) is likely to produce better outcomes when new products are highly innovative because of the need to create an
atmosphere where information flows freely and ideas can be
exchanged easily. Conversely, when new products are mere
line extensions, such loose coordination policies may be too
costly in terms of time and efficiency.
This research on new product development suggests that
both formal and informal communications facilitate interfunctional integration. Formal communications are most effective when communicating important information that
summarizes jointly developed decisions. Formal communication is also effective in disseminating information that is
needed on a recurring basis, such as the reporting of market
intelligence. On the other hand, informal communications
are particularly effective when dealing with unstructured problems and uncertainties in the environment (e.g., changing
needs/specifications of customers, rising competition for an
offering/key account). Thus, we propose:
P4: There is an inverted U-shaped relationship between
the total amount of communication and the degree of sales–
marketing integration. Both formal and informal communications positively affects sales–marketing integration.
However, the effectiveness is moderated by the nature of
the task. Information about strategic directions and regularly occurring information exchanges are best done
through formal communications, whereas information
about unstructured problems is best done through informal communications.
Information Systems
Information systems can facilitate both formal and informal
communications. Sales force automation systems reduce the
effort to generate periodic reports, whereas e-mail encourages timely interactions. Despite these benefits, there is considerable evidence that salespeople often do not adopt such
systems (Erffmeyer and Johnson 2001; Speier and Venkatesh
2002). We focus on two characteristics of information systems that are especially relevant in a sales and marketing context. The first deals with the complexity of the information
system. Salespeople are particularly notorious for their impatience with learning and using information systems that
are complicated to operate. They are more at home in the
field with their customers than in front of their computers.
Although marketing people tend to be more analytical in general, they too resent information systems that take a long
time to learn or use. Thus, information systems that are easy
to learn and use are more likely to be actually used by sales
and marketing people, resulting in greater sales–marketing
integration.
A second characteristic of information systems pertains to
their purpose—whether it is to help sales and marketing people
do their jobs or help supervisors monitor or track their subordinates’ work. To the extent information systems are viewed
by sales and marketing people as designed by management to
monitor and control their activities, the systems are likely to
be rejected or underused. On the other hand, systems designed to help the salespeople perform their “real” jobs are
more likely to be used and lead to greater sales–marketing
integration. Thus, we propose:
P5: The greater the perceived complexity and control orientation of information systems, the lower the degree of
sales–marketing integration.
Job Rotation
Job rotation has often been advocated to achieve better crossfunctional integration (e.g., Griffin and Hauser 1996). Rotating managers between marketing and sales serves two
purposes. First, through job rotation, employees develop a
larger network of people within the firm that can be called on
Spring 2005 119
when opportunities or challenges arise. Second, through immersion in different functional areas, managers can develop a
better understanding of their counterparts’ culture, activities,
constraints, and objectives.
However, poor implementation of a job rotation program
may substantially reduce, and even negate, benefits of integration. If too few managers cross marketing and sales boundaries, the managers that do cross are likely to feel isolated,
rejected, and unable to initiate collaboration routines that
foster cooperation. Conversely, if too many managers rotate
from one function to another, it might create opportunity
costs, because various activities/territories/customers will be
neglected or at least not well taken care of. Moreover, the
resulting loss of functional specialization is likely to lead to
impaired performance of the functional activities.
The similarities of the task undertaken in the functional
areas can affect the cost–benefit trade-off of job rotation. If
specialized skills are required in the different functional areas, the cost of job rotation is higher. It would appear that
sales and marketing activities are more similar and require
less specialized knowledge than, say, sales and engineering (see
Figure 1). Thus, we propose:
P6: Job rotation has an inverted U-shaped relationship
with the degree of sales–marketing integration with the
highest level of integration resulting from modest amounts
of rotation.
Integrated Goals
Integrated goals are objectives that are superordinate to the
interests of individuals (or subunits) within a firm. They serve
to align interests of individuals (or subunits) with other individuals and subunits (Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski 1997). For
example, in our context, sales and marketing could have integrated goals pertaining to sales revenues of specific products
or product categories. In addition, sales and marketing could
have superordinate goals pertaining to activities at the intersection of sales and marketing (Figure 1), such as (1) sequencing of customers for launching a new product, and (2) value
proposition definition for a product. Integrated goals have
been found to have a positive effect on several dimensions of
marketing’s integration with other functions such as engineering, R&D, and manufacturing (Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski
1997; Song, Xie, and Dyer 2000). However, research on team
goal setting has found that mutual participation in establishing the goals is critical for acceptance of the goals and motivation toward achieving them. Thus,
P7: Integrated goals positively affect the degree of sales–
marketing integration, particularly when the functional
areas participate in establishing the goals.
Incentives
Reward and recognition systems are another mechanism for
enhancing functional integration. For example, in the study
presented by Rouziès (2004), a number of firms reported incentives for a common objective—customer satisfaction.
Whereas goals help focus the energy of sales and marketing
functions in a desired direction, reward and recognition that
are contingent upon attainment of those goals helps motivate
functions to expend effort to realize those goals. Incentive
reward systems have been reported to have a positive effect
on several dimensions of marketing integration with other
functions (Menon, Jaworski, and Kohli 1997). Thus, to the
extent that rewards and recognition for sales and marketing
in a firm focus on achievement of integrated sales and marketing goals, sales–marketing integration is likely to be enhanced (Dewsnap and Jobber 2000). Therefore,
P8: The use of incentives requiring achievement of integrated goals positively affects the degree of sales–marketing
integration.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture is the set of beliefs and norms shared
by members of an organization or subunit within the organization (Schein 1993). These unwritten rules help resolve dilemmas that can arise in organizations. Scholars have identified
a number of different types of norms. For example, Rousseau
(1990) identifies norms related to achievement, cooperation,
self-expression, and affiliation that may exist in a team.
Hofstede (1998) discusses six cultural dimensions—process
oriented versus results oriented, employee versus job oriented,
parochial versus professional, open versus closed, loose versus tight control, and normative versus pragmatic orientation. Sales–marketing integration requires the two functions
to share information and adjust their activities to accommodate each other’s concerns and perspectives (see Figure 1).
These are likely to be facilitated by organizational norms that
place a premium on sharing and adapting. Thus,
P9: Organizational cultures with norms of sharing and
adapting positively affect the degree of sales–marketing
integration.
People
A final approach for improving sales–marketing integration
is to hire and promote people in sales and marketing who are
open-minded, team players—who feel that working together
with other functional areas enhances their personal performance as well as the performance of their functional area and
firm. For example, research has found that a manager’s
120 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
psychological connection to his or her functional area compared to the firm as a whole (i.e., relative functional identification) has a negative effect on integration. Moreover, marketing
managers with a strong relative functional identity have been
found to use coerciveness in their relationships with the engineering function, more than managers with a low relative functional identity, because they realize that they need the work
of engineers to reach their goals (Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski
1997). Similar effects are expected to prevail in the sales–
marketing interface. Thus,
P10: The greater the relative functional identity of sales
and marketing managers, the lower the degree of sales–
marketing integration.
EFFECT OF SALES–MARKETING
INTEGRATION ON BUSINESS
PERFORMANCE
Based on their review of the literature, Dewsnap and Jobber
(2000) propose that marketing and sales integration in consumer packaged-goods companies has a positive effect on
brand-related and trade-related measures of business performance. In addition, there is empirical support for this contention. Tatikonda and Montoya-Weiss (2001) conclude that
integrating marketing and operations for innovation positively
affects customer satisfaction and relative sales. Similarly, Song,
Xie, and Dyer (2000) find that integration of marketing managers with other functional managers results in higher business performance. As performance related to the efficiency of
marketing integration with other functions is well documented
in the literature, we propose that sales–marketing integration
has a positive effect on organizational performance.
P11: The greater the level of sales–marketing integration,
the higher the business performance.
Effects of Moderating Variables
While we propose a main effect of sales–marketing integration on firm performance, we also recognize that integration
has its costs and benefits. Conditions affecting the trade-off
between these costs and benefits are likely to moderate the
integration–performance relationships. We consider four categories of moderators: (1) environment, (2) customers,
(3) competitors, and (4) company. We illustrate the nature of
these moderating effects by focusing on one moderator in
each of these four categories—environmental uncertainty,
customer concentration, competitive intensity, and rate of new
product introduction. It would be useful to study additional
moderators such as environmental complexity, customer sophistication, competitive structure, and company acquisition
propensity in future studies.
Environment
Workman, Homburg, and Gruner (1998) suggest that environmental uncertainty leads to dispersion of marketing activities throughout the organization (e.g., across different
functional subunits). The more such dispersion of activities
occurs, the greater is the need to integrate the activities of the
different subunits such as sales and marketing. Research on
related themes supports this expectation: Environmental uncertainty has been found to strengthen the interfunctional
coordination–innovativeness relationship (Han, Kim, and
Srivastava 1998) and reinforce the interfunctional connectedness–product quality relationship (Menon, Jaworski, and
Kohli 1997). Thus, we propose that:
P12: The greater the environmental uncertainty, the stronger the positive effect of sales–marketing integration on business performance.
Customers
Customer concentration refers to a situation in which a relatively few customers account for most of a firm’s sales. When
customer concentration is high, customers have significant
power over the firm and tend to use the power to demand
ever higher levels of performance from the firm. Delivering
a high level of performance requires (among other things) a
high level of sales–marketing integration. Although sales–
marketing integration is important for attaining business
performance in all contexts, it is much more so when customer concentration is high. This is because, in such situations, a single customer’s decision to take its business
elsewhere can have a major effect on the supplier firm’s performance. Thus,
P13: The higher the customer concentration, the stronger
the positive effect of sales–marketing integration on business performance.
Competitors
Similar to customer concentration, competitive intensity is
expected to have a moderating influence on the relationship
between sales–marketing integration and business performance. When competitive intensity is high, it is particularly
important for a firm to deliver superior value to customers
(Kohli and Jaworski 1990). If a firm does not do so, it is
likely to lose out to competitors. Sales–marketing integration
is important for meeting customer needs and requirements.
If competitive intensity is relatively low, a firm may be able to
attain good business performance even without sales–marketing integration because of the “slack” afforded by the marketplace. Thus,
Spring 2005 121
P14: The higher the competitive intensity, the stronger the
positive effect of sales–marketing integration on business
performance.
Company
A company that pursues a strategy that relies heavily on the
development and launch of new products and services is
likely to require a tighter integration between sales and marketing. Sales and marketing must coordinate and support
each other’s activities if the new products and services are to
be designed and launched effectively in the marketplace. In
contrast, a firm with relatively few new products/services is
likely to be affected by lack of integration to a lesser extent.
Note that while sales–marketing integration is important for
business performance in both types of firms, it is expected
to be more important in the case of firms that rely heavily
on the introduction of a stream of new products/services.
Thus,
P15: The higher a firm’s reliance on a new products/services
strategy, the stronger the positive effect of sales–marketing
integration on business performance.
DISCUSSION
Managers indicate that improving the interaction and cooperation between sales and marketing is becoming more important in light of the increasing dynamic and competitive
environment. Improving the interaction between marketing
and sales is challenging due to differences in the mind-sets of
the two functional areas.
While there has been significant research on the interface
between marketing and other functions, particularly with respect to new product development, limited attention has been
paid to the sales–marketing interface. Although sales and marketing people have different perspectives and goals, their viewpoints and backgrounds are more similar than those of people
in, say, marketing and R&D functions. Thus, one would expect the integrating mechanisms presented in this paper to be
differentially effective across functional interfaces.
In hopes of stimulating more research on sales–marketing
integration, we have developed a conceptual framework in
this paper proposing a set of integrating mechanisms, and
conditions in which sales–marketing integration is most critical for firm performance.
REFERENCES
Aberdeen Group (2002), “Bridging the Divide: Process, Technology, and the Marketing/Sales Interface,” Marketing View
Point, 15, 10 (October 4), 1–12.
Aiken, Michael, and Jerald Hage (1968), “Organizational Independence and Intraorganizational Structure,” American Sociological Review, 33 (December), 912–930.
Ancona, Deborah Gladstein, and David F. Caldwell (1992),
“Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team
Performance,” Organization Science, 3 (3), 321–341.
Cepedes, Frank (1996), “Beyond Teamwork: How the Wise Can
Synchronize,” Marketing Management, 5 (Spring), 24–37.
Clark, Kim B., and Takahiro Fujimoto (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization and Management
in the World Auto Industry, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 38–52.
Dewsnap, Belinda, and David Jobber (2000), “The Sales–Marketing Interface in Consumer Packaged-Goods Companies:
A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 20, 2 (Spring), 109–119.
Erffmeyer, Robert C., and Dale A. Johnson (2001), “An Exploratory Study of Sales Force Automation Practices: Expectations and Realities,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 21, 2 (Spring), 167–175.
Fisher, Robert J., Eliot Maltz, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1997),
“Enhancing Communication Between Marketing and Engineering: The Moderating Role of Relative Functional Identification,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (July) 54–70.
Griffin, Abbie, and John R. Hauser (1996), “Integrating R&D
and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the Literature,”
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13 (3), 191–215.
Han, Jin K., Namwoon Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (1998),
“Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is
Innovation a Missing Link?” Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 30–45.
Hofstede, Geert (1998), “Attitudes, Values and Organizational
Culture: Disentangling the Concepts,” Organization Studies, 19 (3), 477–493.
Kahn, Kenneth B. (1996), “Interdepartmental Integration: A
Definition with Implications for Product Development
Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management,
13 (2), 137–151.
——— (2001), “Market Orientation, Interdepartmental Integration, and Product Development Performance,” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 18 (September), 314–323.
———, and John Mentzer (1998), “Marketing’s Integration with
Other Departments,” Journal of Business Research, 42 (May),
53–62.
Kohli, Ajay, and Bernard J. Jaworsky (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 1–18.
Lawrence, Paul R., and Jon W. Lorsch (1967), Organization and
Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Maltz, Elliot, and Ajay K. Kohli (1996), “Market Intelligence
Dissemination Across Functional Boundaries,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 33 (February), 47–61.
Menon, Ajay, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Ajay K. Kohli (1997),
“Product Quality: Impact of Interdepartmental Interac-
122 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
tions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3),
187–200.
Miller, Tory G., and Erick P. Gist (2003), Selling in Turbulence
Times, New York: Accenture-Economist Intelligence Unit
Survey.
Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), “The Effect of a
Marketing Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal
of Marketing, 54 (October), 20–35.
Olson, Eric M., Orville C. Walker, Jr., and Robert W. Ruekert
(1995), “Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness,”
Journal of Marketing, 59 (January), 48–62.
Randel, Amy E., and Kimberly S. Jaussi (2003), “Functional
Background Identity, Diversity, and Individual Performance
in Cross-Functional Teams,” Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6), 763–774.
Rousseau, Denise (1990), “Assessing Organization Culture: The
Case for Multiple Methods,” in Frontiers of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, vol. 3, B. Schneider, ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 153–192.
Rouziès, Dominique (2004), “Observatoire de la relation marketing-commercial” [Special Report by the Center for the
Study of Sales and Marketing Relationships], White paper,
ADETEM, BT-Syntegra, HEC-Paris, Microsoft and
Novamétrie.
Ruekert, Robert W., and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1987),
“Marketing’s Interaction with Other Functional Units: A
Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence,” Journal
of Marketing, 51 (January), 1–19.
Schein, Edgar H. (1993), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2d ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver (1994), “Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation–Per-
formance Relationship?” Journal of Marketing, 58 (January), 46–55.
Song, Michael X., J. Xie, and Barbara Dyer (2000), “Antecedents and Consequences of Marketing Managers’ ConflictHandling Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (January),
50–66.
Speier, Cheri, and Viswanath Venkatesh (2002), “The Hidden
Minefields in the Adoption of Sales Force Automation Technologies,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (July), 98–112.
Strahle, William M., Rosann L. Spiro, and Frank Acito (1996),
“Marketing and Sales: Strategic Alignment and Functional
Implementation,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16, 1 (Winter), 1–20.
Tatikonda, Mohan V., and Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss (2001), “Integrating Operations and Marketing Perspectives of Product Innovation: The Influence of Organizational Process
Factors and Capabilities on Development Performance,”
Management Science, 47 (1), 151–172.
Weitz, Barton (1978), “The Relationship Between Salesperson
Performance and Understanding of Customer Decision
Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 15 (November),
501–517
———, and Erin Anderson (1981), “Organizing the Marketing
Function,” in 1981 Annual Review of Marketing, Ben Enis
and Kenneth Roering, eds., Chicago: American Marketing
Association, 134–142.
Workman, John P., Jr., Christian Homburg, and Kjell Gruner
(1998), “Marketing Organization: An Integrative Framework of Dimensions and Determinants,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (July), 21–41.
Zoltners, Andris (2004), “Sales and Marketing Interface,” paper
presented at the Sales Force Summit, University of Houston, Texas, May.