Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does marketing and sales integration always pay off? Evidence from a social capital perspective

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Building on social capital theory, we view the marketing and sales interface as a set of inter-group ties and investigate how cross-functional relationships may facilitate the development of social capital associated with value creation. Our findings suggest that social capital embedded in marketing and sales relationships can inhibit a firm’s performance depending on the characteristics of its customers. Our results also demonstrate that managing the marketing and sales interface at different levels of customer concentration is critical to the success of a firm’s performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K, Kraus, F. (2013). Performance impact of middle managers’ adaptive strategy implementation: the role of social capital. Strategic Management Journal, in press.

  • Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R. (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: towards a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (1986). Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In R. J. Bies (Ed.), Moving Beyond Equity Theory: New Directions in Research on Justice in Organizations. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Academy of Management: Chicago, IL.

  • Birley, S. (1985). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Philips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R. I. Sutton, B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behaviour (pp. 345–423) Greenwich: JAI Press, CT, 22.

  • Cespedes, F. V. (1995). Concurrent marketing: Integrating product, sales, and service. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., Singh, H. & Lee, K.(2000). Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Cohl, P., & Ky, N. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a metaanalytic review of 25 years of justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 424–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearborn, D., & Simon, H. (1958). Selective perception: a note on the departmental identification of executives. Sociometry, 140–144.

  • Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2000). The sales-marketing interface in consumer packaged-goods companies: a conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XX(2), 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWulf, K., Odeberken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 65(October), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erdogan, B., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: the moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 395–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. (Er), Palmatier, R. W., Scheer, L. K., Li, N. (2008). Trust at different organizational levels. Journal of Marketing, March, 72, 2, 80–98.

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, A. R. (2004). Contextual antecedents and consequences of relationships between young firms and distinct types of dominant exchange partners. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(5), 681–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs, 74(5), 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptations of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo, M., Ertug, G., & Galunic, C. (2009). The two faces of control: network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 299–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: a field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: which differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 124–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J.P., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing's influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Jensen, O. (2002). A configurational perspective on key account management. Journal of Marketing, 66(2), 38–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: a taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. E., Le Bon, J., & Malshe, A. (2012). The marketing-sales interface at the interface: creating market-based capabilities through organizational synergies. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32, 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, D. E., Le Bon, J., & Rapp, A. (2013). Gaining and leveraging customer-based competitive intelligence: the pivotal role of social capital and salesperson adaptive selling skills. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(1), 91–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hulland, J., Nenkov, G., & Barclay, D. W. (2012). Perceived marketing-sales relationship effectives: a matter of justice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 450–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jap, S., & Anderson, E. (2003). Safeguarding interorganizational performance and continuity under ex post opportunism. Management Science, 49(12), 1684–1701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57, 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. D., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., Jundt, D., & Meyer, C. J. (2006). Cutthroat cooperation: asymmetrical adaptation of team reward structures. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 103–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E., Brown, S. P., Zoltners, A. A., & Weitz, B. A. (2005). The changing environment of selling and sales management. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25(2), 105–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketokivi, M., & Castaner, X. (2004). Strategic planning as an integrative device. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 337–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Brent Smith, D., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohmer, H., Homburg, C., & Workman, J. P. (2002). Should marketing be cross-functional? Conceptual development and international empirical evidence. Journal of Business Research, 55(6), 451–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, T., & Calantone, R. J. (1998). The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage: conceptualization and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, I., & Ebers, M. (2006). Dynamics of social capital and their performance implications: lessons from biotechnology start-ups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 262–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilitites. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1997). Product quality: impact of interdepartmental interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P. (2005). Structural vs. relational embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1129–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2005). Understanding firms’ customer satisfaction information usage. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 131–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murtha, B. R., Challagalla, G., & Kohli, A. K. (2011). The threat from within: account managers’ concern about opportunism by their own team members. Management Science, 57(9), 1580–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: the role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M.-H. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 569–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W. (2008). Interfirm relational drivers of customer value. Journal of Marketing, 72, 76–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1994). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Kogut, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, P. (1983). A structurationist account of political culture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 414–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberson, Q. (2006). Justice in teams: the activation and role of sensemaking in the emergence of justice climates. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 177–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberson, Q. M., & Williamson, I. O. (2012). Justice in self-managing teams: the role of social networks in the emergence of procedural justice climates. Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 685–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblatt, V. (2012). Hierarchies, power inequalities, and organizational corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 237–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 & Sales Management, 25(2), 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (1987). Marketing’s interaction with other functional units: a conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46, 612–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sigaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Baker, T. L. (1998). Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: the distributor perspective. Journal of Marketing, 62(July), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. M., Gopalakrishna, S., & Chatterjee, R. (2006). A three-stage model of integrated marketing communications at the marketing–sales interface. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 564–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steward, M. D., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Kumar, A. (2010). The coordination strategies of high-performing salespeople: internal working relationships that drive success. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 38, 550–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strahle, W. M., Spiro, R. L., & Acito, F. (1996). Marketing and sales: strategic alignment and functional implementation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 60–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekleab, A. G., Takeuchi, R., & Taylor, M. (2005). Extending the chain of relationships among organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 146–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. (1978). Technical communication in r&d laboratories: the impact of project work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 624–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T., Degoey, P., & Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Üstuner, T., & Godes, D. (2006). Better sales networks. Harvard Business Review, 84(7–8), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Üstüner, T., & Iacobucci, D. (2012). Does intraorganizational network embeddedness improve salespeople’s effectiveness? A task contingency perspective. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XXXII(2), 187–205. Spring.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational communities: culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 287–365.

  • Venkataraman, S., Van de Ven, A. H., Buckeye, J., & Hudson, R. (1990). Starting up in a turbulent environment: a process model of failure among firms with high customer dependence. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 277–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., Morgan, R. E., & Autry, C. W. (2009). Product-market strategy and the marketing capabilities of the firm: impact on market effectiveness and cash flow performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1310–1334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. (1969). Organizational context and interdepartmental conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(4), 522–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, B. A., & Bradford, K. D. (1999). Personal selling and sales management: a relationship marketing perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiesenfeld, B. M., Swann, W. B., Jr., Brockner, J., & Bartel, C. A. (2007). Is more fairness always preferred? Self-esteem moderates reactions to procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1235–1253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wind, Y., & Robertson, T. (1983). Marketing strategy: new directions for theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 47(2), 12–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Workman, Jr., John, P., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: the cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. (2008). How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72, 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou, X., & Ingram, P. (2013). Bonds and boundaries: network structure, organizational boundaries, and job performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 98–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Don Barclay, Rodolphe Durand, Carrie Leana, Michael Segalla, Tomas Hult, and three anonymous JAMS reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. We also appreciate the comments of participants in seminars at the 2008 Erin Anderson’s Research Conference and at the 2010 AMA Winter’s Educators Conference. The authors acknowledge the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada and the HEC Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EDF Chair Professor of Marketing, HEC-Paris, 1, avenue de la libération, 78351, Jouy-en-Josas, France

    Dominique Rouziès

  2. Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, 104 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

    John Hulland

Authors
  1. Dominique Rouziès
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Hulland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Hulland.

Appendix

Appendix

Study measures

Business unit performance

  • Market share growth.

  • Sales growth.

  • Increased customer satisfaction.

  • Increased customer value.

  • Increased profits.

  • A greater focus on customers.

  • Success compared to competition.

  • Stronger relationships with its customers.

(7-point Likert scale; “In the past 6 months, our business has had …”; 1 = “None”, 7 = “A lot”)

Non-cooperative rewards

  • Evidence of cooperation between departments is acknowledged by superiors in my business unit. (reverse-coded)

  • There is little recognition given for considering another department’s problems.

  • People pretty well look out for their own interests.

  • My business unit blames departments for errors rather than seeking the causes of the errors.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Cooperative rewards

  • No matter which department they are in, people in this business unit get recognized for being sensitive to competitive moves.

  • Customer satisfaction assessments influence senior managers’ pay in this business unit.

  • Formal rewards (i.e., pay raises, promotions) are forthcoming to anyone who consistently provides good market intelligence.

  • Salespeople’s performance in this business unit is measured by the strength of the relationships they build with customers.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Functional power

  • Power within the business unit.

  • Influence within the business unit.

  • Leadership within the business unit.

(7-point scale; “Who has …”; 1 = “Marketing is much stronger”, 4 = “Both are equal”, 7 = “Sales is much stronger”)

Distributive justice

  • Marketing and Sales both get what they deserve in this business unit.

  • Resources are allocated fairly across Marketing and Sales.

  • Sales and Marketing are equitably rewarded and recognized for their successes.

  • Sales and Marketing equally share the glory if good things happen.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Procedural justice

  • Our department has little say in how resources are allocated. (reverse-coded)

  • Resource allocation decisions are determined entirely outside our department. (reverse-coded)

  • Resource allocations are made in a timely fashion in this company.

  • Many of the budget decisions that are made here seem arbitrary. (reverse-coded)

  • We are often not given much of a chance to explain our resource needs. (reverse-coded)

  • The business unit’s resource allocation process is very flexible.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Customer concentration

  • Our customers are committed to rationalizing their supplier base over time.

  • Customers in our business are gaining power through consolidation.

  • Our customers are placing more emphasis on supply chain management.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Technological turbulence

  • Our direct customers (accounts) are placing more emphasis on technology as they deal with suppliers.

  • The technology in our industry is changing rapidly.

  • Technology changes provide big opportunities in our industry.

  • A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological breakthroughs in our industry.

  • Technological developments in our industry are relatively minor. (reverse-coded)

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Market turbulence

  • Our customers’ preferences change quite a bit over time.

  • Our customers tend to look for new products all the time.

  • We are witnessing demand for our products and services from customers who have never bought them before.

  • New customers tend to have product-related needs that are different from those of our existing customers

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Competitive intensity

  • Competition in this category is cutthroat.

  • Anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily.

  • Price competition is a hallmark of this category.

  • One hears of a new competitive move almost every day.

  • Our primary competitors are relatively weak. (reverse-coded)

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Tie strength: structural social capital

  • Formal liaison people are used between Sales and Marketing.

  • We use field marketing specialists.

  • Cross-functional account teams are formally established.

  • Cross-functional project teams are formally established.

(7-point Likert scale; “To what extent are the following used in your firm?”; 1 = “Not at all”, 7 = “Extensively”)

Trust and cooperation: relational social capital

  • We always keep our promises to one another.

  • Sales and Marketing are not always honest with one another. (reverse-coded)

  • We are genuinely concerned that both departments succeed.

  • We trust Sales [Marketing] to keep our best interests in mind.

  • Sales [Marketing] is trustworthy.

  • We are very cautious in our dealings with one another. (reverse-coded)

  • Sales and Marketing both have high integrity.

  • Sales [Marketing] trusts us to do the right thing.

  • We always act in the spirit of cooperation.

  • We try to accommodate each other when making decisions that affect both Sales and Marketing.

  • We frequently discuss business issues that affect both departments.

  • If we have a problem with Sales [Marketing], we will tell them about it.

  • Sometimes we engage in opportunistic behavior at each other’s expense. (reverse-coded).

  • A healthy “give and take” relationship exists between Sales and Marketing.

  • Both departments volunteer information and ideas that they believe affect each other.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Shared vision: cognitive social capital

  • Our department does not really feel a part of this business unit. (reverse-coded)

  • The business unit’s successes are our department’s successes.

  • This business unit deserves our department’s loyalty.

  • Our department is a key “part of the family” in this business unit.

(7-point Likert scale; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

  • Focus on different time horizons.

  • Are responsible for different results (e.g., profits versus revenue).

  • Have different views of the world.

  • Stay in the organization for different lengths of time.

  • Stay in their department for different lengths of time.

  • Have different goals and priorities.

  • Have different motivations.

  • Pay attention to different information.

  • Are rewarded for achieving different things.

  • Look to the organization for different “things”.

  • Have different tolerances for ambiguity.

  • Speak a different “language”.

  • Have different levels of competence.

(7-point Likert scale; “Comparing people in our Sales and Marketing departments, on average they are …”; 1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “strongly agree”)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rouziès, D., Hulland, J. Does marketing and sales integration always pay off? Evidence from a social capital perspective. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 42, 511–527 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0375-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0375-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation