Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974 – 988
Developing marketing capabilities for customer value creation through
Marketing–Sales integration
Paolo Guenzi a,⁎, Gabriele Troilo a,b
a
Università L. Bocconi and SDA Bocconi School of Management, Italy
b
Universidad Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Received 26 January 2006; received in revised form 26 May 2006; accepted 10 June 2006
Available online 28 July 2006
Abstract
The capacity to create superior customer value stems from the marketing capabilities a company possesses. A considerable body of research
has indicated that market oriented companies have distinctive marketing capabilities which lead to superior organizational performance. Although
it has been widely recognized that the development of marketing capabilities requires the joint effort of Marketing and Sales departments, almost
no attention has been devoted to investigating the integration of these two functions. This study reports on an exploratory effort to use the means–
end theory in explaining Marketing–Sales integration. Findings show that Marketing–Sales integration is a multi-faceted construct made up of
different components that impact different marketing capabilities and highlight its antecedents and consequences.
© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marketing–Sales relationships; Interdepartmental integration; Marketing capabilities; Means–end theory; Laddering
1. Introduction
One of the cornerstones of modern marketing thought is that
market oriented companies are better equipped to meet the
generation of superior customer value and, as a consequence, to
attain sustainable competitive advantage. Several studies show
that market orientation is positively related to organizational
performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990;
Ruekert, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1994). The ability to generate
superior customer value is dependent on the availability of
distinctive marketing capabilities (Day, 1994a; Hult & Ketchen,
2001; Slater & Narver, 1995, 2000).
Inter-functional relationships are at the basis of the market
orientation construct. Narver and Slater (1990) consider interfunctional coordination as a component of the construct, whereas Kohli and Jaworski (1990) suggest that interdepartmental
dynamics are an antecedent of market orientation. In short,
⁎ Corresponding author. Università L. Bocconi, Italy.
E-mail address: paolo.guenzi@sdabocconi.it (P. Guenzi).
0019-8501/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.06.006
market oriented companies are characterized by a high level of
integration of market-related knowledge and skills.
Prior research shows that knowledge and skills regarding
market-related activities are spread throughout the organization,
the highest concentration, as one would expect, in the two
departments traditionally responsible for managing market relationships: Marketing and Sales (Homburg, Workman, & Jensen,
2000; Homburg, Workman, & Krohmer, 1999; Krohmer,
Homburg, & Workman, 2002; Rouziès et al., 2005; Zoltners,
2004). Despite the fact that Marketing and Sales often share
responsibility for many common activities, their rapport is not
without problems (Anderson, 1996; Carpenter, 1992; Shocker,
Srivastava, & Ruekert, 1994; Strahle, Spiro, & Acito, 1996). As
a result, opportunities for a company to create superior customer
value risk being seriously challenged. Even though the existing
literature (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000, 2002; Rouziès et al., 2005)
has contributed to enhancing our knowledge on Marketing–
Sales integration, research in this area is still scarce.
The purpose of this study is to explore the contribution of
Marketing–Sales integration to the development of marketing
capabilities, and, as a consequence, to the creation of superior
value for the customer. In particular, our objectives are to better
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
clarify and detail the integration construct; to investigate how
Marketing–Sales integration can impact different marketing
capabilities; and, finally, to identify potential antecedents which
may foster Marketing–Sales integration.
The article, therefore, is structured as follows. Firstly, a
literature review on marketing capabilities and Marketing–
Sales integration highlights the limitations of prior research
regarding the contribution of the two departments (and their
integration) to the creation of superior customer value. Secondly, our methodological approach is described and findings of the
exploratory research on Marketing–Sales integration are presented and discussed. Lastly, a discussion of theoretical and
managerial implications and possibilities for future research on
the topic conclude the paper.
2. Literature review
2.1. Marketing capabilities and the contribution of Marketing
and Sales departments
Over the last decade, a growing number of studies have
highlighted the role of marketing capabilities in the attainment
of a firm's competitive advantage. Leveraging on the resourcebased view of the firm (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Peteraf, 1993;
Wernerfelt, 1984) and on the capability-based view of the firm
(Grant, 1996; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen,
1997), marketing researchers demonstrated that marketing
resources and capabilities can contribute to the creation of a
competitive advantage because they may be rare, difficult to
achieve, difficult to duplicate and their value can be appropriated
by the organization (Dutta, Narasimhan, & Rajiv, 1999; Hooley,
Greenley, Cadogan, & Fahy, 2005; Hunt & Morgan, 1995;
Vorhies, Harker, & Rao, 1999; Weerawardena, 2003a).
Marketing capabilities have been defined as “the integrative
processes designed to apply collective knowledge, skills and
resources of the firm to market-related needs of the business,
enabling the business to add value to its goods and services,
adapt to market conditions, take advantage of market opportunities and meet competitive threats” (Vorhies, 1998: 4). However, the literature also suggests the existence of different
classifications of marketing capabilities. All of them share the
assumption that these capabilities are exercised through specific
marketing processes. The most popular one has been proposed
by Day (1994a) who distinguishes between market sensing and
customer-linking capabilities: the first referring to the ability of
a company to identify customers' needs, the second referring to
the ability to build relationship with them. Still other authors
claim that market oriented companies share a distinctive capability, that is, the ability to learn from the market (Li & Calantone,
1998; Slater & Narver, 1995; Weerawardena, 2003a,b). In fact,
the capacity to collect, disseminate and use market-based
information is key to the growth of organizational performance
(Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990).
Several studies point out that an effective development of
marketing capabilities calls for both Marketing and Sales departments to modify their role and practices in order to increase
the coordination of their activities and give life to integrated
975
processes (e.g. Cespedes, 1993; Day, 1994a; Slater & Narver,
1995). However, scholars have devoted very limited attention to
which mechanisms a firm may use to foster the coordination of
the two units, since both are involved in the design and implementation of marketing processes. Almost all studies on this
topic implicitly assume that marketing activities are under the
complete responsibility and control of a single organizational
unit, namely, the Marketing department. However, this assumption does not hold true if one takes into account that in many
modern corporations, it is the Sales department that actually has
more influence than Marketing on many of the so-called
“marketing” decisions (Homburg et al., 1999; Krohmer et al.,
2002). Based on the above, the development of marketing
capabilities requires a joint effort of the two departments and
their integration comes to the fore as a relevant theoretical and
managerial issue.
2.2. Marketing–Sales integration
Marketing–Sales integration is “the extent to which the
activities carried out by the two functions are supportive of each
other” (Rouziès et al., 2005: 115). In modern companies,
Marketing and Sales are kept separate due to the specialized
tasks each is called upon to deal with in the external environment (Cespedes, 1993; Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000): the Marketing department is usually focused on customer marketing, brand
management, advertising management, marketing research;
while the Sales department is focused on trade marketing, trade
negotiations, channel management. However, as stated by
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967), organizational functioning requires
differentiation and integration, where the former meets the need
for specialization, and the latter ensures the direction of efforts
and resources toward a common goal.
Literature on Marketing–Sales integration is quite scarce and
mostly devoted to exploring the barriers to integration. Drawing
on new product development literature (e.g. Fisher, Maltz, &
Jaworski, 1997; Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Gupta, Raj, & Wilemon,
1986; Maltz, 1997), Dewsnap and Jobber (2002) highlight the
role of socio-psychological differences between the two groups.
Similarly, Rouziès et al. (2005) confirm that a major impediment
to Marketing–Sales integration is created by the different mindsets of employees of the two units. Unfortunately, however, both
Dewsnap and Jobber (2002) and Rouziès et al. (2005) only
develop conceptual frameworks. They do not empirically test the
relationship between the existence of such impediments and
Marketing–Sales integration, nor do they test the impact of
potentially beneficial antecedents on integration. Surprisingly, a
widely accepted definition and a measure of the integration
construct are still eluding the literature (Rouziès et al., 2005).
Previous research on Marketing integration with departments
other than Sales might provide some help. Kahn and his colleagues (Kahn, 1996, 2001; Kahn & McDonough, 1997; Kahn
& Mentzer, 1998) suggest that interdepartmental integration is a
combination of interaction and collaboration. Interaction regards communication flows between the two organization units.
Effective interaction takes place when functions regularly
exchange information in a formalized way through meetings,
976
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
memoranda, documents, etc. Collaboration, on the other hand,
requires that the two functions be willing to work together and
share the same vision, goal and resources. However, other
scholars (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000; Fisher et al., 1997; Maltz &
Kohli, 1996; Rouziès et al., 2005) claim that some of the
components of the integration construct highlighted by Kahn
and colleagues – like information exchange, communication,
teamwork, shared goals – just play the role of antecedents to
Marketing–Sales integration.
Moreover, Kahn and colleagues (Kahn, 1996, 2001; Kahn &
McDonough, 1997; Kahn & Mentzer, 1998) posit that successful
integration relationships with Marketing depend on which
functional unit or department is to be integrated. They suggest
that different interdepartmental relationships warrant specific
investigation.
2.2.1. Summary and objectives
Our literature review reveals four limitations to existing
studies. Firstly, despite the fact that marketing capabilities are
defined as “integrative processes” (Day, 1994a; Vorhies, 1998), a
clear explanation of how these processes function is still, in our
view, missing. Much of the research emphasizes the need for
integration (Ruekert & Walker, 1987) but there is no theoretical
explanation nor empirical evidence to support that different
marketing capabilities may require various levels of integration.
Similarly, it remains unclear as to whether those capabilities
would be affected differently by the various components of
integration.
Secondly, marketing organization studies emphasize the
‘shared’ responsibilities and activities between Sales and
Marketing departments in today's modern firms (Homburg et
al., 1999; Krohmer et al., 2002). Similarly, marketing strategy
research posits that the capacity to offer superior customer value
and to achieve a competitive advantage requires a joint effort of
Marketing and Sales departments (e.g. Cross, Hartley, Rudelius,
& Vassey, 2001; Slater & Olson, 2000). However, prior research
on marketing capabilities does not seem to recognize the joint
contribution of Marketing and Sales departments in the development of those capabilities, assuming that marketing activities
fall under the responsibility of a single department and that the
relationships between Marketing and Sales are non-problematic.
On the contrary, literature on Marketing–Sales interface demonstrates that it is not the case (Anderson, 1996; Carpenter, 1992;
Shocker et al., 1994; Strahle et al., 1996). We therefore maintain
that the contribution of integration between Marketing and Sales
to the development of marketing capabilities remains mostly
unexamined.
Thirdly, there is no widespread agreement on the nature of
the Marketing–Sales integration construct. The scarce literature
that does exist on the topic is purely theoretical (Dewsnap &
Jobber, 2000, 2002; Rouziès et al., 2005). Clear and detailed
specification of the construct is still lacking. What is present in
the literature leverages on Marketing integration with other nonSales departments and hence ignores the rather peculiar relationship that exists between Sales and Marketing. In fact, the
two departments are resource interdependent, their activities
and responsibilities overlap and the change in the organizational
design of many modern corporations makes the two functions
increasingly intertwined (Workman, Homburg, & Jensen,
2003).
Fourthly, there has been little field research to date regarding
the antecedents and consequences of Marketing–Sales integration. Literature on Marketing relationships with other departments
(excluding Sales) has analyzed a number of integrating mechanisms (Leenders & Wierenga, 2002; Maltz & Kohli, 2000),
demonstrating that they are not equally effective in terms of the
different expected integration outcomes. Furthermore, prior research on the consequences of Marketing relationships with other
functions (Kahn, 1996, 2001; Kahn & Mentzer, 1998) shows that
the outcomes of these relationships are indeed different for each
cross-functional relationship type. As a result, an analysis of the
specific drivers and consequences of Marketing–Sales integration
is still missing.
Considering these limitations in extant research, we designed
a field research project with several objectives. The first objective was to depict a more comprehensive and detailed view of
the construct in terms of its components and the relationships
among them. The second objective was to disentangle the
relationships between Marketing–Sales integration and specific
marketing capabilities. In particular, we wanted to explore the
role played by the different components of integration in the
development of the marketing capabilities described in extant
literature. Finally, we aimed at depicting a clearer picture of
antecedents and consequences of Marketing–Sales integration
by exploring the different nature of antecedents and describing
the consequences of integration in terms of valuable outcomes
for the customer.
3. The study
Due to the lack of robust conceptual and empirical foundations for our topic, we adopted an exploratory approach with a
qualitative research design. We are interested in exploring the
relationship between Marketing–Sales integration with its antecedents and consequences, hence the method we selected was
the laddering technique based on means–end theory.
As pointed out by Foote and Lamb (2002), laddering provides for an opportunity to clarify meanings, explanations, goals
and values beyond that achievable with the more widely used
techniques of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. In
fact, the resultant data potentially allows for the use of qualitative and quantitative analysis meaningfully without the necessity for large respondent samples. Compared to other interviewing
techniques, laddering has several important advantages. Firstly, it
reduces the risk that some important attributes/benefits are overlooked in the in-depth interviews (Botschen, Thelen, & Pieters,
1999). Secondly, it allows for the conversion of the qualitative
data (i.e. the raw verbatim responses) into nominal codes that can
be quantified (Gengler & Reynolds, 1995). This in turn permits a
shift from the ladders produced by many individuals to the
aggregate cognitive structure of a group of people. These can be
interpreted as “dominant ways of thinking” (Reynolds & Gutman,
1988). Finally, laddering facilitates the construction of Hierarchical Value Maps, which graphically display a well-organized
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
summary of the information derived from the interviews (Claeys,
Swinnen, & Vanden Abeele, 1995).
According to means–end theory, three categories of meaning
are typically associated with a concept (Thompson & Chen,
1998): a) attributes (the means) i.e. relatively concrete meanings
that represent the observable, perceived characteristics of the
object of analysis; b) consequences, i.e. more abstract meanings
reflecting the perceived functional or psycho-social benefits or
costs associated with specific attributes; c) personal values, i.e.
highly abstract meanings referring to enduring end-states of
existence that respondents seek to achieve through their behavior.
Originally developed for analyzing and interpreting consumer
behavior (Gutman, 1982), means–end has more recently been
applied for eliciting information from managers about organizational culture (Rugg, Mahmood, Rehman, Andrews, & Davies,
2002), personal values (Bourne & Jenkins, 2005; Foote & Lamb,
2002) and success factors for specific job positions, such as the
sales managers (Deeter-Schmelz, Kennedy, & Goebel, 2002).
Laddering (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988) employs a one-to-one
interviewing technique in which a series of directed probes are
used to reveal how respondents link the attributes of the object of
analysis (the integration of Marketing and Sales departments in
our case) to their own underlying values. This allows researchers
to determine the ladder of linkages between attributes, consequences and values.
Since using laddering implies the risk of incurring in wrong
or biased interpretations when content-analyzing verbal data
collected through the laddering interview technique (Langerak,
Peelen, & Nijssen, 1999; White & Kokotsaki, 2004), we
decided to run some preliminary interviews to gain some insights on the topic under investigation. In fact coding “chunks”
of meaning to which each verbatim should be assigned is a
complicated process that gives a lot of latitude to the researcher.
Hence, coding should preferably not be based on the
researcher's idiosyncratic cognitive categories (Grunert &
Grunert, 1995). Thus, we conducted 12 in-depth interviews
with marketing managers, sales managers and CEOs of companies operating in different environments (i.e. both business to
business and business to consumer goods and services). We are,
after all, probing into the nature of Marketing–Sales integration
and how it contributes to developing marketing capabilities and
superior customer value. Moreover, in the case this contribution
were to be further developed, we would be interested in understanding the managerial tools respondents perceived as useful to
foster integration. Therefore, interviews covered three main
issues: what is Marketing–Sales integration and how is it
interpreted by managers? Why is such integration relevant?
How can such integration be improved?
Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 min. Table 1
provides some descriptive information on respondents.
Subsequently, we used means–end chain theory and the
laddering technique. Consistent with Reynolds, Dethloff, and
Westberg's (2001) argument that a minimum of 20 respondents
should be interviewed, we interviewed 33 executives attending
different Marketing and/or Sales courses at a major business
school. Worthy of note is that none of these courses dealt with the
topic of the relationship between these two functions in any way.
977
Table 1
Descriptive information on respondents interviewed in the first step of the
research process
Respondent
Gender
Market
Job position
1
2
3
4
5
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Marketing manager
Marketing manager
Sales Manager
Sales Manager
Sales Manager
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Beverage (non-alcoholic drinks)
Electrical equipment
Automotive spare parts
Professional coffee machines
Cement, aggregates,
concrete and constructionrelated services
Professional hand-tools
Luxury goods
Stainless steel flat products
Construction materials
Medical equipment
Beverage (alcoholic drinks)
Coffee
Sales Manager
Marketing manager
CEO
Marketing manager
CEO
Marketing manager
Marketing manager
All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.
The number of interviews is consistent with previous exploratory
analysis based on the same research technique (see Bourne &
Jenkins, 2005; Foote & Lamb, 2002; Rugg et al., 2002;
Thompson & Chen, 1998), while the variety of profiles in the
sample ensures the general applicability of results, avoiding the
mere description of policy and behavior of a specific firm or
organization. The final respondents are executives of companies
operating in B2B markets (54.5%) and consumer markets
(45.5%) in many different industries (e.g. FMCG, banking,
telecommunications, medical equipment, etc.) As for the job
position of our respondents, 51.5% work in the Marketing
department, 36.4% in the Sales function, and 12.1% have different roles (e.g. CEO, business unit director, etc.). In keeping
with Reynolds and Gutman's (1988) recommendations, respondent introspection was facilitated by presenting the interviewer as
a facilitator and the respondent as the expert. Before starting each
interview, the fact that there were no right or wrong answers was
made clear and that the purpose was simply to understand the
respondent's opinion. The interview started asking each
respondent to indicate 5 to 8 mechanisms he or she considered
important for fostering effective integration of Marketing and
Sales departments. This free elicitation of relevant attributes is a
common practice in means–end research (Botschen et al., 1999).
This list of attributes served as a basis for asking the question
“why is that important to you?”. This procedure was repeated
varying the actual wording of the probe (e.g. “why is that?”,
“what happens if this is absent?”) or by evoking specific
situational contexts. This gradually led respondents to higherlevel distinctions and helped them move forward.
4. Findings
4.1. Preliminary interviews
Regarding the meaning of Marketing–Sales integration, many
different interpretations emerged. Integration was described by
executives in terms of coordination, collaboration, communication, working relationships, level of conflict, distribution of
978
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
power. Many respondents provided different definitions of the
integration concept during the interview, pointing out that integration can refer to different levels: integration of goals, resources
or activities carried out by the two departments in question. As
one marketing manager pointed out:
We [the Sales department and us] may share our goals. But
sharing plans and resources is a completely different story.
This evidence suggests that integration is a complex and
multi-faceted construct. For example, some managers claimed
that sharing decisions does not imply accepting them.
Similarly, it was noted that knowing one's counterparts does
not always equate to understanding them or to being able to put
themselves in the ‘other department's shoes’ per se. This
complexity is clear in the following statement made by a sales
manager:
They [colleagues from the Marketing department] know
what we do. We share a lot of information and regularly
meet them every week. However, I am not sure that they
really understand what our job is about. Product managers
seldom call on customers with our salespeople. As a consequence, I don't think we truly trust each other. I don't
know… I am not sure we can properly say that we have a
high level of integration.
The complex network of subjective mental associations is
apparent if one considers that in some cases the same concept
was interpreted in opposite ways by different respondents,
depending on the connections they made between that concept
and positive or negative consequences. For example, in most
cases power imbalance between the two departments was
considered detrimental to interfunctional integration. However,
as one marketing manager pointed out:
To some degree, I think that power imbalance is good. We
need to get things done rapidly. Clarity is more important
than equity. When we have a meeting, we need to come out
with decisions, even though they are perceived as “unfair”
by some.
Table 2
Definitions of variables used for the Hierarchical Value Map
Code
Label
Definition
A2
A6
Spatial proximity of Marketing and Sales offices
People from Marketing and Sales departments interact by exchanging standard written documents
A7
A8
A9
A10
Physical location
Exchange of documentation (e.g. report, fax,
memoranda, etc.)
Training
ICT (e.g. mail, database, phone, etc.)
Job rotation
Planned meetings
A11
A12
A15
Unplanned meetings
Organizational structure
Reward systems
A16
A18
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C8
C9
Corporate strategy and culture
Joint customer calls
Better decisions
Better implementation
Consistency and synergies
Collaboration
Commitment
Sharing goals and resources
Less conflict
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C17
C18
C19
C22
C24
V1
V3
V4
V6
V8
V9
Confrontation
Communication
Better market knowledge
Helping the counterpart
Understanding the counterpart
Broader perspective
Motivation
Positive work climate
Solving customer problems
Shared strategies and plans
Trust in the counterpart
Achieving corporate success
Achieving corporate goals
Improving corporate image
Innovation
Employee satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
People from Marketing and Sales departments jointly participate to cross-functional training programs
People from Marketing and Sales departments interact by exchanging information through ICT tools
The company stimulates job rotation between Marketing and Sales departments
People from Marketing and Sales departments regularly interact by participating to fixed contact points
(e.g. monthly meetings)
People from Marketing and Sales departments interact by organizing informal meetings
The company's organizational structure facilitates interaction between Marketing and Sales departments
The company adopts some form of cross-functional incentive schemes based on the attainment of
interdepartmental goals
The company's strategy and culture support interdepartmental interaction and collaboration
People from Marketing accompany salespeople calling on customers
Improving speed and quality of decision-making processes
Improving the actual implementation of decisions, strategies and plans
Reducing waste of organizational resources, optimizing resource allocation
Interdepartmental relations are characterized by goodwill, mutual respect and teamwork
Increasing job commitment of employees
Each department knows the other department's goals and resources
Reducing the parties' negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with
the attainment of own goals
Openness and willingness to listen to the counterpart's arguments
Exchanging information
Broadening and deepening the understanding of market phenomena
Willingness to solve the counterpart's problems
Developing a better knowledge of the working conditions and problems of the counterpart
Taking into account the counterpart's point of view
Increasing job motivation of employees
Developing esprit de corps and improving the working conditions in terms of quality of social relations
Improving the ability to solve customer problems
Each department knows the other department's strategies and plans
Thinking that the counterpart is reliable, dependable and acts in the other department's interest
Ability to outperform competitors
Ability to accomplish the goals set by the company
Ability to increase the company reputation
Ability to create new products and services
Ability to satisfy employees' job requirements
Overall ability to satisfy customer needs
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Similar considerations hold true for conflict. One marketing
manager emphasized that:
Our CEO believes that conflict is positive, because it helps
motivating people and getting the most from each department […] moreover, by stimulating interfunctional conflicts,
the CEO aims at dividing functional managers: this way, he
avoids being the minority when decisions must be made.
Among the most cited reasons for poor integration (and in
many cases even for conflict) between Marketing and Sales is the
existence of different perspectives and time frames used in the
processes of goal setting, resource allocation and performance
evaluation (e.g. Rouziès et al., 2005; Strahle et al., 1996). Such
differences obviously lead to conflicting priorities and inconsistent activities, because Marketing mainly adopts a strategic, longterm perspective, while Sales primarily focuses on tactical, shortterm objectives and activities. This radical difference is apparent
in the following quote by one sales manager:
To me, marketing is a dream, while sales are real life.
Addressing the importance of achieving integration, in
keeping with Cespedes (1993), managers pointed out that
Marketing and Sales perform interrelated tasks, which often
lead to overlapping situations that spark confusion and
uncertainty about who is required to do what. Hence, interfunctional integration is needed to improve the performance of
joint and/or complementary activities, since effective implementation requires the existence of positive cross-functional
relationships (e.g. Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000; Ellinger, 2000).
However, respondents had differing interpretations on performance indicators that were affected by achieving strong
integration between Marketing and Sales: for example, all
managers mentioned process improvements (e.g. “more datadriven decision making” or “faster implementation of strategies
and plans”), while only eight managers explicitly indicated the
impact on bottom-line performance and seven respondents
pointed out the positive impact on socio-psychological aspects
related to organizational climate.
Finally, respondents suggested a number of different ways to
improve Marketing–Sales integration. In keeping with Rouziès
et al. (2005), these integrating mechanisms belong to company
culture (e.g. market orientation), structure (e.g. use of a direct
sales force), processes (e.g. cross-functional incentive systems)
and personal characteristics (e.g. collaborative attitude). All
respondents mentioned processes, while company culture,
structure and personal characteristics were cited by five, eight
and six managers, respectively.
These results helped us in two ways. They suggested our
paying much more attention to different components of the
integration construct. As stated earlier, the literature review
suggested that interaction and collaboration should have been
the components to focus on, whereas our respondents gave us a
much broader view of the concept. We also collected a list of
codes, related to components of the Marketing–Sales integration construct, to be used during data interpretation in the next
step of this study. The availability of the list helped us reduce
the bias derived by our idiosyncratic cognitive structures.
979
4.2. Laddering
The research team started out by content analyzing the
interview transcripts: ladders of each response were classified
Table 3
Macro-categories used for the Hierarchical Value Map
Code
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
Label
Common budget
Physical location
Common plans
Common research
Recruitment criteria and policies
Exchange of documentation (e.g. report,
fax, memoranda, etc.)
Training
ICT (e.g. mail, database, phone, etc.)
Job rotation
Planned meetings
Unplanned meetings
Organizational structure
Personal characteristics
Total quality management
Reward systems
Corporate strategy and culture
Teams
Joint customer calls
Accepting decisions
Better decisions
Better implementation
Consistency and synergies
Collaboration
Commitment
Common decisions
Sharing goals and resources
Less conflict
Confrontation
Communication
Better market knowledge
Helping the counterpart
Understanding the counterpart
Broader perspective
More responsibilities
Motivation
Positive work climate
Solving customer problems
Time and resources saving
Shared goals
Shared strategies and plans
Self-improvement
Trust in the counterpart
Achieving corporate success
Increasing creativity
Achieving corporate goals
Improving corporate image
Organizational flexibility
Innovation
Crisis resolution
Employee satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Sum of direct (XX)
and indirect (YY)
relationships XX.
YY
Out
In
4.24
6.59
3.19
1.6
1.3
13.91
–
–
–
–
–
–
11.64
15.143
8.50
26.217
8.53
24.168
7.39
5.28
12.76
15.124
4.34
11.108.
5.11
20.14
13.6
16.9
25.51
15.20
3.6
10.8
11.22
19.56
72.179
42.61
9.6
29.57
22.12
6.4
9.12
16.14
18.12
1.6
2.1
25.29
1.4
11.11
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
6.30
28.115
23.112
28.97
22.40
10.46
7.21
14.37
14.47
19.20
112.19
29.137
10.42
35.42
13.63
4.16
8.36
19.69
21.94
7.61
3.5
24.84
2.12
10.46
37.172
4.6
18.85
6.44
2.16
14.84
1.9
12.66
16.62
Dropped items are in italics; bold characters show the highest frequencies.
980
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Fig. 1. Hierarchical Value Map.
into attributes, consequences and values. These summary codes
were then aggregated into a smaller number of broad categories.
Much consideration was given to how fine-grained the coding
should be. In line with Van Rekom, Van Riel, and Wierenga
(2006), we chose a conservative approach to avoid excessively
broad categories. Nevertheless, this still led to some 51 codes,
which are consistent with the threshold suggested by Gengler
and Reynolds (1995, p.24).
Thus through the coding process we identified 18 attributes,
24 consequences and 9 values (Table 2 presents a short
definition of variables). Next, connections between attributes,
consequences and values were summarized in an implication
matrix representing the number of both direct and indirect
connections between each attribute, consequence and value
(Klenosky, Gengler, & Mulvey, 1993).
The implication matrix, a square matrix whose size reflects
the set of elements identified through the coding process, shows
attributes, benefits and values that act as the row and column
elements. The cells contain the frequency in which a particular
column element is mentioned after a particular row element,
aggregated across subjects and laddering. Both direct and
indirect linkages between meanings are entered and the diagonal remains empty since a particular row element cannot be
mentioned after itself.
Overall, 588 direct connections and 1918 indirect
connections were identified. Table 3 summarizes the number
of direct and indirect relationships between an element and
other elements leading into them (“in”) and higher order
elements connected to them (“out”) (Reynolds & Gutman,
1988).
Then, a Hierarchical Value Map (HVM) was built (Fig. 1)
by connecting the chains extracted from the implications
matrix. In doing this, consistent with previous research using a
similar number of respondents (Thompson & Chen, 1998), a
cut-off level of three relationships was established: all connections below this level were ignored. Of note is that “there
are no theoretical or statistical criteria to guide the selection of
the cutoff level” (Grunert & Grunert, 1995, p.221). Since there
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Fig. 2. a: First dominant chain. b: Second dominant chain. c: Third dominant chain. d: Fourth dominant chain.
981
982
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Fig. 2 (continued).
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
is a tradeoff between comprehensiveness and parsimony
(Bagozzi & Dabholkar, 2000), a compromise is needed
between retaining information and creating a manageable
map. This process requires a lot of ingenuity, heuristics or a
patient trial-and-error approach (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988).
The only guidelines suggested when constructing an HVM are
the following: “one should try at all costs to avoid cross lines”
(Gutman, 1982, p.65) on the maps for the benefit of
interpretability. Secondly, all concepts should be mentioned
by at least 5% of the respondents (i.e. two managers, in our
case) (Gengler, Klenosky, & Mulvey, 1995; Klenosky et al.,
1993). Thirdly, the most relevant criteria in establishing how
effective the map is in representing the data is to assess the
percentage of all relationships among elements accounted for
by the mapped elements (Reynolds & Gutman, 1988). The
typical threshold value here is 70% (Gengler & Reynolds,
1995). Our final choice met all these requirements, since the
final HVM has very few cross-lines. The map includes only
those concepts cited by at least 7 of the 33 respondents: the
final attributes, consequences and values account respectively
for 86.2%, 92.5% and 89.8% of total attributes, consequences
and values cited by respondents. Finally, the HVM incorporates 69.7% of total connections.
The map in Fig. 1 depicts attributes, consequences and
values in different ways. The “n” inside the circles indicates the
number of respondents who cited that concept. The relative
strength of association between concepts is represented by the
width of the connecting lines.
In line with relevant literature (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000;
Leenders & Wierenga, 2002; Maltz & Kohli, 2000; Rouziès et
al., 2005), the 11 attributes finally used refer to different
organizational elements: culture/strategy, structure, processes
and managerial systems.
The 18 consequences retained include both psycho-social
benefits (e.g. trust, commitment, motivation, perception of
positive climate) (e.g. Dewsnap & Jobber, 2002) and functional
benefits (e.g. better decisions, better implementation) (e.g.
Cespedes, 1993; Rouziès et al., 2005), thus confirming the
findings of the preliminary study. These consequences provide a
detailed picture of different components of the “integration”
construct to be discussed later.
The final six values refer to distinct although related entities:
customers (customer satisfaction), the company (success,
corporate image) and its employees (employee satisfaction).
Consistent with other studies (e.g. Thompson & Chen, 1998;
Van Rekom et al., 2006), we decided to present both the
complete HVM and the dominant chains separately. The
complete HVM is drawn for purposes of analysis. It is highly
informative but is also complex. The dominant chains are drawn
for purposes of presentation, since they help clarify and better
understand the connections among the key variables.
The complete HVM incorporates 52 different attribute–
consequence–value chains. By analyzing both their length and
the sum of links (direct and indirect) they incorporate, it is
possible to identify the dominant chains (Aurifeille & ValetteFlorence, 1995; Gengler et al., 1995). Noteworthy is the fact
that all dominant chains (Fig. 2a,b,c,d) incorporate the concept
983
of communication. The first dominant chain is: communication–confrontation–better market knowledge–broader perspective–better decisions–company success. Similarly, the second
dominant chain follows this path: communication–sharing of
strategies and plan–consistency and synergies–better decisions–company success. A third chain includes: communication–understanding the counterpart–helping the counterpart–
solving problems–increased customer satisfaction. Lastly, a
fourth dominant chain follows the sequence: communication–
collaboration–commitment–motivation–positive climate–employee satisfaction.
5. Discussion
5.1. The nature of Marketing–Sales integration
Previous research suggests that integration is a combination
of interaction and collaboration (Kahn, 1996, 2001). In keeping
with Dewsnap and Jobber (2000) and Rouziès et al. (2005) our
findings highlight a more articulated nature of the integration
construct. Communication and collaboration emerge as two
components of the construct, whereas trust, motivation,
commitment, mutual help, reduced inter-group conflict and
positive organizational climate play a role as well. Communication appears as the central node in the network of concepts
representing integration. Our findings reinforce the fact that
effective communication between Marketing and Sales yields
many positive outcomes including: stimulating confrontation,
mutual understanding, collaboration and sharing. These, in turn,
foster increased effectiveness and efficiency of market knowledge development and decision making, while supporting an
organizational climate based on trust and cooperation, confirming prior research on Marketing interfaces with other functional
units (Fisher et al., 1997; Kahn, 2001; Maltz & Kohli, 1996).
However, earlier research has yet to fully analyze the
relationship between interaction and collaboration considering
them as independent components of integration. Conversely,
our results indicate that interaction – obtained through meetings, exchange of documents, use of ICT, etc. – brings about
collaboration, so that its role as antecedent of collaboration
might be advanced. Other findings suggest that the definition of
integration referred only to marketing and sales activities
(Rouziès et al. 2005) is too limited. Respondents, in fact, also
mention sharing of goals and resources and sharing of strategies
and plans, giving emphasis to the fact that integration can be
achieved at different organizational levels: from bottom-line
activities to strategic decision-making and long-term investments decisions.
5.2. Marketing–Sales integration and marketing capabilities
An analysis of the dominant chains of the HVM provides
some insight into the contribution integrating the two departments has on the development of marketing capabilities.
The first dominant chain (Fig. 2a) suggests that market
sensing and market based generative learning are enriched. As
Day (1994b) suggests, continuous learning about markets
984
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
requires widespread information distribution and mutually
informed mental models. Increased communication between
Marketing and Sales helps ensure the confrontation of different
thought worlds so that mental models of both parties are
challenged and functional oversimplification of market representations can be avoided. Moreover, by dismantling the
systematic or structural constraints on information flows
between the two departments, shared interpretation of information can emerge bringing about generative learning. Generative
learning is different from adaptive learning (Senge, 1990;
Sinkula, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995) in so far as the latter
occurs within the actual knowledge base of the organization,
whereas the former challenges long-held beliefs allowing the
organization to have a broader perspective about its markets. As
a consequence, generative learning improves the effectiveness
of marketing decisions contributing to company success via the
ability to sense and anticipate future market trends ahead of its
competitors (Day, 1994a; Weerawardena, 2003b).
The second dominant chain (Fig. 2b) suggests that
Marketing–Sales integration contributes to market-based adaptive learning and customer linking. In fact, increased communication allows both parties to create a common vision of the
market and strategies as well as plans are therefore shared
accordingly (Kahn, 2001; Slater & Narver, 1995). Improved
alignment between the two functions fosters efficient decisionmaking processes by means of heightened consistency and
synergy. This evidence is strengthened by prior research on
customer relationship management, where the positive effect of
integrated interfunctional efforts for strategic account management (Workman et al., 2003) and relationship selling (Weitz &
Bradford, 1999) is emphasized. The customer linking capability, as discussed in Day (1994a), suggests that improvements
can be developed by means of cross-functional Marketing–
Sales coordination and information sharing that focuses on a
common vision as to which customers to serve and which
quality standards to provide. The ability to create long-lasting
relationships with customers depends on the consistency of
marketing and sales strategies as well as objectives along the
product life cycle (Strahle et al., 1996) and the coordination of
communication and promotional investments/strategies
(Cespedes, 1993).
The third dominant chain (Fig. 2c) displays another
contribution of Marketing–Sales integration to marketing
capabilities. As suggested by Kahn and colleagues (Kahn,
1996, 2001; Kahn & Mentzer, 1998), communication and
mutual understanding are two main components of interdepartmental integration. Our findings suggest that Marketing–
Sales integration generates customer value by means of
increased organizational citizenship (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000, for a review). In fact, helping
behavior is a type of citizenship behavior, defined as
“voluntarily helping others with, or preventing the occurrence
of, work-related problems” (Podsakoff et al., 2000: 516). As
posited in prior research on the topic, organizational
citizenship behavior enhances customer satisfaction by
stimulating constructive suggestions about how to improve
a company's value proposition (Waltz & Niehoff, 1996).
Again, this is yet another example of the contribution of
Marketing–Sales integration to the development of market
sensing capabilities. Several studies demonstrate that the
integration of salespeople in marketing decision-making
contributes to an increased organizational effectiveness in
solving customer problems and enhancing customer satisfaction. Good examples of this are provided by Lambert,
Marmorstein, and Sharma (1990), who focus on the
fundamental role played by the sales force in getting information from the market, von Hippel (1989), who emphasizes
the insights that salespeople get by interacting with lead
users, and Weitz and Bradford (1999), who claim the need to
involve the Sales department in decisions regarding customer
service since part of this service is actually provided by the
sales force.
The fourth dominant chain (Fig. 2d) shows that integration
between Marketing and Sales departments fosters the creation
of an organizational climate typical of learning organizations,
hence giving more emphasis to the market-based learning
capability contribution. In fact, as suggested by Slater and
Narver (1995), learning organizations are characterized by
organic structures (cf. Burns & Stalker, 1961), whose main
features are: recognition of interdependence, information
sharing, cooperation and commitment. Studies on market
orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli & Jaworski,
1990) posit that the typical processes of market oriented
companies – e.g. effective marketing intelligence dissemination
and organizational responsiveness – have a positive impact on
employee satisfaction. Our findings confirm this theory.
Similarly, research on procedural justice in organizations (see
Konowsky, 2000 for a review) also provides support for our
findings. In fact, communication and collaboration are perceived to be opportunities to increase informational justice
(Greenberg, 1993) – that is, provide adequate explanations
related to decisions made – a component of procedural justice.
Prior research (Konowsky, 2000) suggests that perceptions of
procedural justice strongly impact commitment and trust, and,
as a consequence, employee satisfaction. Therefore, again,
Marketing–Sales integration contributes to the creation of an
organizational context supporting market-based organizational
learning.
5.3. Antecedents and consequences of Marketing–Sales
integration
The literature highlights the importance of integration
mechanisms to reduce intra-organizational conflicts and achieve
interdepartmental integration (e.g. Maltz, 1997; Maltz & Kohli,
2000; Rouziès et al., 2005), but an empirical examination of
how these mechanisms function in Marketing–Sales relationships is almost non-existent. Our study begins to shed some
light on this topic, hopefully contributing to “a better
understanding of the social psychological determinants and
effects of relations between Marketing and Sales [which] will
lead managers to design and institute organizational designs and
human resources policies so as to minimise any negative intergroup effects” (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2002: 875). Findings show
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
985
6. Implications
long-held mental models and support generative market
learning. Moreover, sharing strategies and plans allows the
organization to develop adaptive market learning, gaining
efficiency and consistency in marketing decision-making. This,
in turn, brings about an improved ability to design a value
proposition able to better satisfy customer expectations. On a
more general level, other components of Marketing–Sales
integration, like commitment, motivation and trust, help
generate an organizational climate typical of a learning
organization (Li & Calantone, 1998; Senge, 1990; Slater &
Narver, 1995).
Another important theoretical implication of our study
regards the relationship between Marketing–Sales integration
and certain organizational variables like citizenship behavior
and procedural justice. To our knowledge, ours is the first study
to consider these relationships and hopefully will inspire further
debate on the topic. Information sharing, confrontation and
mutual understanding foster citizenship behavior – e.g. helping
behavior – as well as the perception of procedural justice. Prior
literature on citizenship behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2000) and
procedural justice (Konowsky, 2000) posit a significant positive
impact of these variables on organizational effectiveness and
performance. Therefore, the relationship between Marketing–
Sales integration and the creation of superior customer value
creation is also mediated by some characteristics of the
organizational context.
6.1. Theoretical implications
6.2. Managerial implications
The present study is one of the very few empirical
investigations on Marketing–Sales integration. As such it
makes a number of theoretical contributions. The first
contribution is to better specify the nature of the Marketing–
Sales integration construct. Our findings may be used in future
research on how to better implement and measure the
integration construct, or on how to improve model causal
paths between different facets of integration. In fact, the result
that emerges from our data is that the construct is multi-faceted
and encompasses many more interrelated components than
those traditionally considered in the literature on crossfunctional relationships (Kahn, 1996, 2001). An additional
implication regarding the nature of the construct is that a better
understanding may encompass not only the integration of
marketing and sales activities, but also the integration of
strategies, resources and investments.
One important theoretical implication of our study is a
clearer understanding of the relationship between marketing
capabilities and Marketing and Sales integration. Notwithstanding the emphasis made by prior research on marketing
capabilities to the integrative role of those capabilities (Day,
1994a; Vorhies, 1998), a validated work on how integration
functions is missing. The results of our study suggest that
Marketing–Sales integration contributes to the development of
several marketing capabilities: market-based organizational
learning, market sensing and customer linking. In fact,
interdepartmental communication, collaboration and confrontation allow members of the two departments to challenge their
In terms of managerial implications, an important contribution of this study regards integrating mechanisms. Prior research
on interdepartmental integration (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000;
Leenders & Wierenga, 2002; Maltz & Kohli, 2000; Rouziès et
al., 2005) argues that systems supporting information flows and
collaboration between the two functions positively affect their
integration. Our findings suggest that integration components
exceed interaction and collaboration in a way that may also
affect elements like organizational climate, mutual trust,
motivation and commitment. This suggests that some mechanisms are able to affect the various components of integration in
different ways. As a result, the adoption of different integrating
mechanisms calls for a clear understanding of their effects. Such
effects can be interpreted in terms of cognitive, affective and
behavioral responses of marketing and sales personnel, which
should be regularly monitored. Secondly, starting from this indepth understanding, companies should identify likely intraorganizational differences in such responses, try to reduce (if
not eliminate) these differences, reinforce positive associations
and work against negative associations.
An additional managerial implication regards the organizational effects of integration between Marketing and Sales
departments. Contemporary managerial literature emphasizes
the importance of cross-functional teams for the effectiveness of
many organizational processes – e.g. customer order fulfillment, new product/service development, customer service
delivery. Our findings suggest that managers can utilize
interdepartmental integration to also improve citizenship
that different integrating mechanisms have differential effects
on specific integration components. For example, job rotation
impacts mutual understanding (a component of collaboration),
whereas training and organizational structure impact mutual
understanding and communication albeit differently.
As for the consequences of Marketing–Sales integration our
findings begin making progress on the managerial perceptions
of customer value creation to some extent. Customer value
creation is interpreted by respondents as the ability to solve
customer problems by means of better knowledge and a broader
perspective of the market, which allow companies to make
better decisions and innovate. Marketing–Sales integration
emerges as a company key capability contributing to the
generation of customer value. These findings broaden general
definitions of customer value such as the customer's perceptions of the benefits enjoyed versus costs incurred in buying
products or, more simply, what you get for what you pay (e.g.
Ulaga, 2001; Ulaga & Chacour, 2001; Walter, Ritter, &
Gemünden, 2001). In fact, they suggest that customers value
the seller firm's flexibility and responsiveness (e.g. Lapierre,
2000) and anticipate expectations about future performance of
the relationship (Ravald & Grönroos, 1996), hence the
perceived supplier's ability to innovate also plays a very
relevant role.
986
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
behavior and the perception of procedural justice with the
consequent beneficial effect in terms of employee satisfaction
and customer value creation.
The last managerial implication involves organizational
market orientation. Literature on market orientation has posited
the beneficial effect of it in terms of customer satisfaction and
employee satisfaction (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater &
Narver, 1994). Our research provides some guidance to
managers who wish to improve or redirect their organization's
orientation toward their markets. In keeping with Rouziès et al.
(2005: 113), we argue that “Marketing and sales integration is
one of the components of market-driven organizations”. In fact,
the results of our study suggest that effective integration
between Marketing and Sales departments positively contributes to the generation and dissemination of marketing
intelligence (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) and to the creation of
an organizational climate supportive of a learning orientation
(Li & Calantone, 1998; Slater & Narver, 1995).
In conclusion, the integration of Marketing and Sales
departments is a capability in itself, whose development requires
the ability to use appropriate mechanisms at different levels:
organizational culture, organizational design, managerial systems
and communication technology and infrastructure.
6.3. Limitations and future research directions
The study presented here is clearly exploratory. As any
qualitative design, it has limitations in terms of whether it is
considered replicable and hence legitimized in making generalizations of its findings. To achieve these objectives a crosssectional survey should be designed and run. This survey would
help confirm the multi-dimensionality of the integration
construct and analyze the relationship between its different
components. Furthermore, a quantitative design would also help
measure the differential impact of various integrating mechanisms on the different components. Such factors may be
investigated at different levels: company culture, organization
structure, processes/systems and personal characteristics of the
managers of the two functions (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2000;
Langerak, 2001; Rouziès et al., 2005).
The consideration of factors affecting the optimal level of
integration should also be welcome. In a sense, our study
implicitly suggests that when considering integration mechanisms, the relationship between them and the integration achieved
is positive and linear. As prior research suggests with respect to
some mechanisms, this does not always hold true. For example,
Maltz and Kohli (1996) found evidence of an inverted U-shape
relationship between communication and integration. Further
research should investigate if a non-linear relationship may also
hold true for other integrating mechanisms.
Finally, in our study we have focused our attention on
organizational factors and we have not analyzed the differential
need of Marketing–Sales integration resulting from the
existence of specific external variables. As argued by Ruekert
and Walker (1987) different environmental and industry
configurations may require different levels of integration.
Thus, we suggest investigating the role played by the following
categories of variables: i) environmental variables (e.g. market
dynamism, environmental uncertainty, technology turbulence),
ii) customers (e.g. concentration vs. fragmentation, demand
uncertainty), iii) competitors (e.g. competition intensity,
industry concentration, competitors' innovation strategies) and
iv) company (e.g. size, strategic positioning, distinctive
capabilities, reliance on product or process innovation). Some
of these variables may also act as moderators between the use of
integration mechanisms and the resulting Marketing–Sales
integration. This aspect would, in our view, also warrant special
attention.
Acknowledgement
This study was partially supported by the Department of
Marketing and the Research Division of SDA Bocconi School
of Management. The authors thank the anonymous IMM
reviewers for their help in greatly improving the article. They
are also grateful to Prof. Sandro Fazzolari for his help in editing
the final version of the article.
References
Anderson, R. E. (1996). Personal selling and sales management in the new
millennium. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16, 1−16.
Aurifeille, J. M., & Valette-Florence, P. (1995). Determination of the dominant
means–end chains: A constrained clustering approach. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 12, 267−278.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (2000). Discursive psychology: An
alternative conceptual foundation to means–end chain theory. Psychology
and Marketing, 17(7), 535−586.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17(1), 99−120.
Botschen, G., Thelen, E. M., & Pieters, R. (1999). Using means–end structures
for benefit segmentation—an application to services. European Journal of
Marketing, 33(1/2), 38−58.
Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2005). Eliciting managers' personal values: An
adaptation of the laddering interview method. Organizational Research
Methods, 8(4), 410−428.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London:
Tavistock Publications.
Carpenter, P. (1992, March). Bridging the gap between marketing and sales.
Sales and Marketing Management, 29−31.
Cespedes, F. V. (1993). Co-ordinating sales and marketing in consumer goods
firms. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(2), 37−55.
Claeys, C., Swinnen, A., & Vanden Abeele, P. (1995). Consumers' means–end
chains for “think” and “feel” products. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 12(3), 193−208.
Cross, J., Hartley, S. W., Rudelius, W., & Vassey, M. J. (2001). Sales force activities
and marketing strategies in industrial firms: Relationships and implications.
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21(3), 199−206.
Day, G. S. (1994a). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of
Marketing, 58(4), 37−52.
Day, G. S. (1994b, Summer). Continuous learning about markets. California
Management Review, 9−31.
Deeter-Schmelz, D. R., Kennedy, K. N., & Goebel, D. J. (2002). Understanding
sales manager effectiveness—linking attributes to sales force values. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 617−626.
Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2000). The sales–marketing interface in consumer
packaged-good companies: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 20(2), 109−119.
Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2002). A social psychological model of relations
between marketing and sales. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8),
874−894.
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Dutta, S., Narasimhan, O., & Rajiv, S. (1999). Success in high-technology
markets: Is marketing capability critical? Marketing Science, 18(4),
547−568.
Ellinger, A. E. (2000). Improving marketing/logistics cross-functional
collaboration in the supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 29,
85−96.
Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. J. (1997). Enhancing communication
between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative
functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 54−70.
Foote, D., & Lamb, K. (2002). Eliciting information about the values of HRM
practitioners using laddering interviews. Business Ethics, 11(3), 244−252.
Gengler, C. E., & Reynolds, T. J. (1995, July/August). Consumer understanding
and advertising strategy: Analysis and strategic translation of laddering data.
Journal of Advertising Research, 19−33.
Gengler, C. E., Klenosky, D. B., & Mulvey, M. S. (1995). Improving the graphic
representation of means–end results. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 12, 245−256.
Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage:
Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33
(3), 114−135.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:
Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,
7(4), 375−387.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness. Interpersonal and informational
classes of organizational justice. In R. Copranzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp. 79−103).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review
and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
13, 191−215.
Grunert, K. G., & Grunert, S. C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning
structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and
methodological problems. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
12, 209−225.
Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (1986). A model studying R&D–
Marketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of
Marketing, 50(2), 7−17.
Gutman, J. (1982). A means–end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 60−72.
Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in
marketing organization: The movement toward a customer-focused
organizational structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28
(4), 459−478.
Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing's influence
within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 1−17.
Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance
impact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58, 18−27.
Hult, T. G., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001, September). Does market orientation
matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage and
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 899−906.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of
competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1−15.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and
consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53−60.
Kahn, K. B. (1996). Interdepartmental integration: A definition with implications for product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 13, 137−151.
Kahn, K. B. (2001). Market orientation, interdepartmental integration and
product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 314−323.
Kahn, K. B., & McDonough, E. F. (1997). Marketing's integration with R&D
and manufacturing: A cross-regional analysis. Journal of International
Marketing, 5(1), 51−76.
Kahn, K. B., & Mentzer, J. T. (1998). Marketing's integration with other
departments. Journal of Business Research, 42, 53−62.
Klenosky, D. B., Gengler, C. E., & Mulvey, M. S. (1993). Understanding the
factors influencing ski destination choice: A means–end analytical
approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), 362−379.
987
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct,
research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing,
54(2), 1−18.
Konowsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on
business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489−511.
Krohmer, H., Homburg, C., & Workman, J. P. (2002). Should marketing be
cross-functional? Conceptual development and international empirical
evidence. Journal of Business Research, 35, 451−465.
Lambert, D. M., Marmorstein, H., & Sharma, A. (1990). Industrial salespeople
as a source of market information. Industrial Marketing Management, 17,
111−118.
Langerak, F. (2001). Effects of market orientation on the behaviors of
salespersons and purchasers, channel relationships, and performance of
manufacturers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18,
221−234.
Langerak, F., Peelen, E., & Nijssen, E. (1999). A laddering approach to the use
of methods and techniques to reduce the cycle time of new-to-the-firm
products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 173−182.
Lapierre, J. (2000). Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of
Business and Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3), 122−140.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in
complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1−47.
Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wierenga, B. (2002). The effectiveness of different
mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 19, 305−317.
Li, T., & Calantone, R. (1998, October). The impact of market knowledge
competence on new product advantage: Conceptualization and empirical
examination. Journal of Marketing, 62, 13−29.
Maltz, E. (1997). An enhanced framework for improving cooperation between
marketing and other functions: The differential role of integrating
mechanisms. Journal of Market Focused Management, 2, 83−98.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996, February). Market intelligence dissemination
across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 47−61.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing conflict with other
functions: The differential effect of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 479−492.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on
business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54, 20−35.
Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal, 14(3), 179−192.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and
empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of
Management, 26(3), 513−563.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation.
Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79−91.
Ravald, A., & Grönroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 30(2), 19−30.
Reynolds, T. J., Dethloff, C., & Westberg, S. J. (2001). Advances in laddering.
In T. J. Reynolds, & J. C. Olson (Eds.), Understanding consumer decision
making: The means–end approach to marketing and advertising strategy
(pp. 91−118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988, February–March). Laddering theory, method,
analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 11−31.
Rouziès, D., Anderson, E., Kohli, A. K., Michaels, R. E., Weitz, B. A., & Zoltners,
A. A. (2005). Sales and marketing integration: A proposed framework. Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(2), 113−122.
Ruekert, R. W. (1992, August). Developing a market orientation: An
organizational strategy perspective. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 9, 225−246.
Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1987). Marketing's interaction with other
functional units: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal
of Marketing, 51(1), 1−19.
Rugg, G. E. M., Mahmood, A., Rehman, N., Andrews, S., & Davies, S. (2002).
Eliciting information about organizational culture via laddering. Information Systems Journal, 12, 215−229.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Currency.
988
P. Guenzi, G. Troilo / Industrial Marketing Management 35 (2006) 974–988
Shocker, A. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Ruekert, R. W. (1994). Challenges and
opportunities facing brand management: An introduction to the special
issue. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, 149−158.
Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Market information processing and organizational
learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35−45.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the
market orientation–performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1),
46−55.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market orientation and the learning
organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63−74.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2000). Intelligence generation and superior customer
value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 120−127.
Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2000). Strategy type and performance: The
influence of sales force management. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8),
813−830.
Strahle, W. M., Spiro, R. L., & Acito, F. (1996). Marketing and sales: Strategic
alignment and functional implementation. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 16(1), 1−17.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509−533.
Thompson, K. E., & Chen, Y. L. (1998). Retail store image: A means–end
approach. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 4(6),
161−173.
Ulaga, W. (2001, May). Customer value in business markets—an agenda for
inquiry. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 315−319.
Ulaga, W., & Chacour, S. (2001, August). Measuring customer-perceived value
in business markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 525−540.
Van Rekom, J., Van Riel, C. B. M., & Wierenga, B. (2006). A methodology for
assessing organizational core values. Journal of Management Studies, 43
(2), 175−201.
von Hippel, E. (1989). New product ideas from “lead users”. Research
Technology Management, 32, 1−4.
Vorhies, D. W. (1998). An investigation of the factors leading to the
development of marketing capabilities and organizational effectiveness.
Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(1), 3−23.
Vorhies, D. W., Harker, M., & Rao, C. P. (1999). The capabilities and
performance advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of
Marketing, 33(11/12), 1171−1202.
Walter, A., Ritter, T., & Gemünden, H. G. (2001, May). Value creation in buyer–
seller relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 30, 365−377.
Waltz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (1996). Organizational citizenship behaviors and
their effect on organizational effectiveness in limited-menu restaurants. In J. B.
Keys, & L. N. Dosier (Eds.), Academy of management best paper proceedings
(pp. 307−311)..
Weerawardena, J. (2003a). The role of marketing capability in innovation-based
competitive strategy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 15−35.
Weerawardena, J. (2003b). Exploring the role of market learning capability in
competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 407−429.
Weitz, B. A., & Bradford, K. D. (1999). Personal selling and sales management:
A relationship marketing perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 27, 241−254.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 5, 171−180.
White, H., & Kokotsaki, K. (2004). Indian food in the UK: Personal values and
changing patterns of consumption. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 28(3), 284−294.
Workman, J. P., Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2003). Intraorganizational
determinants of key account management effectiveness. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 3−21.
Zoltners, A. (2004). Sales and Marketing Interface. Paper presented at the Sales
Force Summit, University of Houston, May.
Paolo Guenzi is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Università L. Bocconi
and SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy. His main research
interests include sales management, relationship marketing and services
management. His research has been published in the International Journal of
Service Industry Management, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of
Marketing Management and International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship.
Gabriele Troilo is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Università L.
Bocconi and SDA Bocconi School of Management, Milan, Italy. His main
research interests include marketing knowledge management, marketing
capabilities and cross-functional integration. He is Vice President of the
European Marketing Academy.