The Marketing–Sales Interface at the Interface: Creating Market-Based Capabilities through Organizational Synergy

Abstract

The firm’s quest to create customer value is dependent on the synergistic coordination of many parts of the organization, wherein internal resources and capabilities are effectively harnessed to create a competitive advantage. The often suboptimal relationship between marketing and sales acts as an inhibitor to success in this regard and has been the subject of much attention in both the academic literature and popular press. The authors offer new insights into this issue by examining how the marketing–sales interface affects, and is affected by, other functional areas in the development of key organizational capabilities. They introduce a holistic framework that identifies key levers that must be integrated through cross-functional coordination and cooperation to achieve superior market-based capabilities that in turn enable the firm to create lasting customer value. Propositions linking the levers to market-based capabilities are offered to shape new research opportunities in the domain of the marketing and sales interface.

Full text

University of St. omas, Minnesota
UST Research Online
Marketing Faculty Publications Marketing
1-1-2012
e Marketing–Sales Interface at the Interface:
Creating Market-Based Capabilities through
Organizational Synergy
Avinash Malshe
University of St omas, amalshe@shomas.edu
Douglas E. Hughes
Michigan State University, dhughes@msu.edu
Joël Le Bon
University of Houston - Main, jlebon@bauer.uh.edu
Follow this and additional works at: hp://ir.shomas.edu/ocbmktgpub
Part of the Marketing Commons
is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marketing at UST Research Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marketing
Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UST Research Online. For more information, please contact libroadmin@shomas.edu.
Recommended Citation
Malshe, Avinash; Hughes, Douglas E.; and Le Bon, Joël, "e Marketing–Sales Interface at the Interface: Creating Market-Based
Capabilities through Organizational Synergy" (2012). Marketing Faculty Publications. Paper 16.
hp://ir.shomas.edu/ocbmktgpub/16

Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, vol. XXXII, no. 1 (winter 2012), pp. 57–72.
© 2012 PSE National Educational Foundation. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0885-3134 / 2012 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/PSS0885-3134320106
Success in today’s business environment demands a market
orientation that reflects an “organization-wide generation of
market intelligence, dissemination of this intelligence across
disciplines, and responsiveness to it” (Jaworski and Kohli
1993, p. 53). Market-oriented firms create customer value
and achieve competitive advantage through interfunctional
synergy (Goold and Campbell 1998) that enables them to
effectively marshal resources and develop critical capabilities.
Three major components of market orientation are customer
orientation, competitor focus, and cross-functional coordina-
tion (Slater and Narver 1994). No parts of the organization
are more integrally involved with the first two components
than sales and marketing. Unfortunately, despite this shared
responsibility, the relationship between marketing and sales
suffers from distrust and disharmony (Kotler, Rackham, and
Krishnaswamy 2006), and is a troubling source of organiza-
tional conflict (Webster 1997).
The sales–marketing interface (SMI) has received increasing
attention in both the academic literature and popular press.
Empirical evidence suggests that a strong SMI can be advan-
tageous to a firm, while conflicted SMI can have deleterious
effects on customer value creation and business performance
(Guenzi and Troilo 2006, 2007; Le Meunier-FitzHugh and
Piercy 2009). Kotler, Rackham, and Krishnaswamy (2006)
suggest that the two primary sources of SMI friction are eco-
nomics and culture. These differences spawn the formation of
negative stereotypes, particularly with respect to each group’s
perceived role and the validity of accompanying activities, time
focus, and knowledge sources (Beverland, Steel, and Dapiran
2006). Further, goal conflict and strength of strong in-group
identity negatively affects SMI relationship effectiveness
(Dewsnap and Jobber 2002).
The literature also reveals several contributors to an effective
SMI. For example, Dewsnap and Jobber (2000) identify orga-
nizational factors such as values integration, cross-functional
talent exchange, and joint rewards, among others, that
contribute to marketing–sales integration. Malshe and Sohi
(2009a) find that sales buy-in of marketing strategy is depen-
dent on marketers’ objectivity and rational approach as well as
salespeople’s involvement in strategy creation. Other scholars
have highlighted the importance of effective communication,
shared market intelligence, organizational learning, as well as
shared decision making in optimizing the SMI dynamics and
facilitating a customer-oriented culture (e.g., Troilo, De Luca,
and Guenzi 2009).
While existing research has been valuable, its focus to date
has been relatively narrow. There is still much to be learned
Douglas E. Hughes (Ph.D., University of Houston), Assistant
Professor and Director of Research for the Strategic Sales Institute,
Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, dhughes@
msu.edu.
Joël Le Bon (Ph.D., University of Paris Dauphine), Clinical Profes-
sor and Director of Executive Education, Sales Excellence Institute,
Bauer College of Business, University of Houston, jlebon@bauer.
uh.edu.
Avinash Malshe (Ph.D., University of Nebraska–Lincoln), Associ-
ate Professor, Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas,
Minneapolis, MN, amalshe@stthomas.edu.
The authors contributed equally to this paper and gratefully ac-
knowledge the insight of Jan Fedderson of SalesLabs in discussions
associated with this research undertaking. They also thank Ravipreet
Sohi and Wim Biemans for their helpful comments on an earlier
version of this paper.
THE MARKETING–SALES INTERFACE AT THE INTERFACE:
CREATING MARKET-BASED CAPABILITIES THROUGH
ORGANIZATIONAL SYNERGY
Douglas E. Hughes, Joël Le Bon, and Avinash Malshe
The firm’s quest to create customer value is dependent on the synergistic coordination of many parts of the organization,
wherein internal resources and capabilities are effectively harnessed to create a competitive advantage. The often sub-
optimal relationship between marketing and sales acts as an inhibitor to success in this regard and has been the subject
of much attention in both the academic literature and popular press. The authors offer new insights into this issue by
examining how the marketing–sales interface affects, and is affected by, other functional areas in the development of key
organizational capabilities. They introduce a holistic framework that identifies key levers that must be integrated through
cross-functional coordination and cooperation to achieve superior market-based capabilities that in turn enable the firm
to create lasting customer value. Propositions linking the levers to market-based capabilities are offered to shape new
research opportunities in the domain of the marketing and sales interface.

58 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
about the SMI and its impact on the effective functioning of
the firm in its quest to establish and maintain competitive
advantage. In particular, missing is a more holistic view of the
SMI and its interaction with the firm’s other functional areas
en route to the creation of market-based capabilities that en-
able the firm to more effectively compete in the marketplace.
We assert that the development of critical market-based ca-
pabilities depends not only on how effectively SMI functions
but also on how effectively these two functions in combination
interact with other key functional areas within the firm.
Therefore, in this paper we examine the impact of SMI
coordination and conflict on other important interfaces within
the firm, and ultimately on the development of market-based
capabilities. We combine a theoretical discussion of resource-
based competitive advantage and cross-functional synergy
with a series of in-depth interviews with managers across
multiple industries to identify key levers that enable functional
areas within the firm to build the pillars of cooperation and
coordination while circumventing the potential pitfalls of
internal competition and power en route to the development
of market-based capabilities. In so doing, we highlight the
conditions under which an optimally functioning SMI may
enhance a firm’s competitive advantage by optimizing the
interface with other functions.
Our contribution is threefold: (1) we provide a conceptual
framework that proposes a holistic view of the organization
where the SMI interacts at the interface of other functions,
(2) we propose eight levers that must be shared and ultimately
integrated within the SMI and at the interface of other func-
tions to achieve effective cross-functional synergy, and (3) we
discuss the conditions under which an effective SMI at the
interface of the specified functions may build and leverage
five market-based capabilities that enable a firm to create
competitive advantage.
The proposed holistic framework integrates the traditional
SMI analysis into a broader organizational perspective, sug-
gesting that issues faced within the SMI should be analyzed
as consequences of or antecedents to their ongoing interac-
tions with other functions. Furthermore, by identifying key
levers at the interface of the SMI and other functions, this
research provides a better understanding of the facilitating
organizational consolidators that lead to crucial market-based
capabilities. We reveal implications for managers and identify
avenues for new research.
ARTICLE STRUCTURE AND
RESEARCH APPROACH
We lay a foundation by briefly examining the literature on
resource-based competitive advantage, organizational syn-
ergy, and cross-functional interaction. Next, we introduce
an integrative conceptual framework along with research
propositions. We finish with concluding observations and
future research opportunities.
While this paper is conceptual in nature, we augment our
theoretical discussion with exploratory in-depth interview
data gathered from managers from multiple functions across
several different industries. This allows us to better ground
our research and provide for stronger insight while adding
managerially relevant texture to the discussion. Because extant
literature on this topic is scarce, we treated the qualitative work
as exploratory in helping inform us as to the range of variables/
elements that pertain to our thesis (McCracken 1988).
While we used a convenience sample, we made an effort to
recruit individuals from a cross-section of departments, firms,
and hierarchical levels to provide a holistic perspective. We
interviewed 25 managers from eighteen Fortune 500 compa-
nies, representing human resources, research and development
(R&D), manufacturing, channel management, customer
relationship management (CRM), engineering, operations,
purchasing, and other areas as shown in Table 1.
We used open-ended questions to collect the data, allowing
our informants to dictate the flow and content of our con-
versation (McCracken 1988). Our questions focused on how
various functions within their organizations worked together,
what the specific challenges were, and how they managed to
work around those challenges to achieve their end objectives.
For those informants who were comfortable with us recording
their interviews, we did that (13 informants); for the rest, we
made extensive notes.
While we did not engage in extensive coding as recom-
mended for a full-fledged qualitative study, we did identify
major themes from each of the interviews and situated those
themes within the broader investigation. For example, we
looked for specific ideas regarding organizational mechanisms
that allowed informants’ firms to maintain harmonious re-
lationships and appropriate coordination among multiple
departments. We also investigated the types of relationships
these integrative mechanisms had with firms’ key marketing
capabilities. We used the NVivo software to manage our
transcripts, interview notes, and data analysis. We include re-
spondent comments where applicable in the context of theory
surrounding the potential synergistic levers and market-based
capabilities that form the basis of our thesis.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION
Resource-Based Competitive Advantage and
Organizational Synergy
The resource-based view asserts that the basis for competitive
advantage lies in a firm’s ability to leverage internal resources

Winter 2012 59
to create customer value (Wernerfelt 1984). Resources are
tangible and intangible assets controlled by the firm, and in-
clude financial, physical, human, and organizational capital.
Capabilities refer to the firm-specific capacity to integrate and
deploy these resources to produce desired results over time
through complex combinations of and interactions among
the firm’s resources (Amit and Shoemaker 1993). A firm’s
competencies reflect the collection of resources it possesses
along with its capabilities in exploiting them. A sustained
competitive advantage can be achieved when these compe-
tencies are valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable
(Barney 1991).
Embedded within the organization and relying on inter-
nal relationships and processes, capabilities act as bonding
mechanisms where resources are combined in innovative ways
and where primary value and support activities are integrated
(Duncan, Ginter, and Swayne 1998). Capabilities involve the
development, assimilation, and communication of informa-
tion across the firm’s human capital and structure (Amit and
Shoemaker 1993) and serve to enhance firm’s productivity.
Intangible capabilities are more likely than tangible resources
to be socially complex and causally ambiguous, making them
difficult to imitate or reproduce (Peteraf 1993).
Efficient utilization of resources and development of ca-
pabilities requires synergy across a firm’s internal functions.
Synergy refers to combined or “cooperative” effects (Corning
1998). Salmons and Wilson’s (2008, p. 34) definition of
organizational synergy is “an open, integrated process that
fosters collaboration and encourages participants to expand
connections beyond typical boundaries and achieve innovative
outcomes,” reflecting the assumption that the effects produced
by the whole are greater than the ones produced by the parts
alone (Wimsatt 1974).
Organizations are complex systems of professional special-
izations that must dynamically integrate themselves into, and
react to, the competitive environment (Frank and Fahrbach
1999). Market dynamics can render a firm’s competencies
more or less valuable over time (Barney 1995), making re-
sponsiveness and adaptability important conditions for suc-
cess. This requires seamless coordination of the organization’s
many moving parts. Organizational synergy necessitates the
(1) harmonization of different purposes through the creation
of an organic system infusing organizational objectives and
individual goals, (2) optimal balance between the formal and
informal organization, (3) strong cohesion between man-
agement and staff, and (4) deep understanding of external
stakeholder interests so that the entire organization is guided
by clear vision, values, and goals when building relationships
(Marinescu, Toma, and Ianole 2008). Eventually, synergistic
human activities produce higher efficiency and lower costs
(Corning 1995; Haken 1973).
Overall, these two streams of literature suggest that the
synergistic functioning of a firm’s cross-functional communi-
cation systems, processes, and practices may result in stronger
capabilities, more effective strategies, and increased ability to
serve external markets.
The Marketing–Sales Interface at the Interface of
Other Functions
Sales and marketing each plays a coordinating role in the
implicit and explicit connections between firm and customer.
Hence, the SMI’s relationship to other parts of the organi-
zation is crucial to the effective functioning of a market-
oriented enterprise. Scholars have shown that marketing’s
ability to positively interact and collaborate with other
functions may stimulate customer value delivery (Troilo,
De Luca, and Guenzi 2009) and improve organization per-
formance (Kahn and Mentzer 1998). Moreover, marketing
often takes the lead in spawning market-oriented thinking
Table 1
Informant Characteristics
Total number of informants 25
Informant age range 24–59 years
Gender Males: 75 percent
Females: 25 percent
Functions represented Sales, marketing, general management, purchasing, channel support, operations,
production control, corporate strategy, R&D, human resources, finance
Industries represented IT, CPG, agriculture, food and beverage, industrial services, consumer durables,
health care, consumer electronics, medical devices
Levels represented within informant organizations Senior: 15 percent
Middle: 50 percent
Junior: 35 percent
Business unit size range Number of employees: 100 to over 2,000
Annual sales: $55 million to over $0.5 billion

60 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
and behavior throughout the firm (Slater and Narver 1994).
Directly interacting with the external market, the sales func-
tion represents the interpersonal embodiment of the market-
ing concept and face of the firm to the customer while also
serving as a primary source of market intelligence (Le Bon
and Merunka 2006).
The extant literature examines marketing’s interface with
other functional areas beyond sales such as manufacturing
(e.g., O’Leary-Kelly and Flores 2002), R&D (e.g., Leenders
and Wierega 2008), finance (e.g., Hyman and Mathur 2005),
accounting (e.g., Ratnatunga, Pike, and Hooley 1989), engi-
neering (Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski 1997), logistics (Ellinger
2000), purchasing (Williams, Giunipero, and Henthorne
1994), and human resources (Ewing and Caruana 1999).
This literature collectively points to the interdependencies
of marketing and other functional areas and the advantage
to the firm of positive interfunctional collaboration.
We respond to scholars’ call for integrative frameworks
that extend theory by broadening our focus and building a
conceptual framework that holistically examines how synergy
within the SMI in coordination with other function helps
companies create market-based capabilities.
INTEGRATIVE FRAMEWORK AND
RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS
We propose a holistic ecosystem where the SMI interacts at
the interface of other functions (see Figure 1). Coordination
and cooperation are two strategic mechanisms for synergetic
cross-functional integration, whereas navigating power and
internal competition dynamics are inherent to organizational
functioning (Luo, Slotegraaf, and Pan 2006).
Our framework embraces eight synergistic levers and
five market-based capabilities. We explain the role played
by a collaborative SMI in ensuring the firm is able to build,
maintain, and utilize market-based capabilities en route to
internal competitive advantage. We discuss each lever and
capability and how various organizational entities interact
with sales and marketing in developing and enacting each
capability. Drawing on our interview data, we highlight the
Figure 1
The Sales–Marketing Interface Integrative Framework

Winter 2012 61
crucial role played by the SMI dynamic with respect to each
lever and within each capability. In so doing, we reveal ways
in which a less than optimally functioning SMI may hamper
the interface with other functions and adversely affect firm’s
internal competitive advantage.
The Synergistic Levers
Vision
An empowering vision motivates employees to engage in be-
haviors that lead toward a common cause, facilitating coopera-
tion and transcending power and competition. It is imperative
that all functions in the firm, including marketing and sales
(Guenzi and Troilo 2006), share the same vision. Shared vi-
sion amplifies the firm’ ability to marshal internal resources
and respond to change in a dynamic marketplace (Wiersema
and Bantel 1992) and help firms better execute marketing
strategy (Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman 2002). One of
our participants offered the following:
It is vital that other functions share our view of the world and
where we want to take the firm since we cannot get the job
done alone . . . we need other departments to do their job . . .
and having a unified vision helps drive everyone in the same
direction. (Randy, sales support, medical device)
Alignment
Alignment refers to a commonality in goals and strategy
along with a facilitating structure. Firms need both vertical
and horizontal alignment since studies have shown a posi-
tive link between alignment and firm performance subject
to various mediating and moderating influences (Kathuria,
Joshi, and Porth 2007). Alignment requires that firms abolish
functional silos and motivate functional areas to subordinate
their interests to that of the organization while proactively
searching for ways to collaborate toward that end (Malshe
and Sohi 2009b).
Before we launch any major initiative, we ensure that there is
as much of an alignment as possible across multiple functions
so that everyone’s systems and processes are ready to handle
new challenges. We ensure that we are on the same page with
our goals, and major process parameters. Even a slightest lack
of alignment on objectives can derail the entire activity and it
can be very costly. (Teresa, general manager, engineering)
Processes
A process is a series of actions, steps, or activities designed
to achieve an end. Scholars suggest that processes help firms
exploit firm resources and capabilities (Stalk, Evans, and
Shulman 1992) and realize competitive advantage (Porter
1991). Roles and responsibilities, transitional procedures,
and rules of engagement become less ambiguous when pro-
cesses are well defined. Accepted formal and informal pro-
cesses should facilitate marketing and sales cooperation and
stimulate multiple functional groups’ communication and
understanding (Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman 2002).
As one participant noted:
In the past, we did not spend enough time defining what the
actual work flow and sales implementation processes would
look like. So, we would know what the strategy was . . . but
no one knew what needed to happen and who was respon-
sible for a specific element. Over the years, we have learned
to ensure that the process elements are in place before we
do implementation. (Roger, marketing manager, consumer
electronics)
Information
Information is what forms and transforms representations
(McKay 1969). As firms strive to strengthen two-way com-
munication with their customers, information flow across
functions has become increasingly critical to organizational
learning, shared understanding, and market responsiveness
(Duncan and Moriarty 1998). For example, the marketing
department through its market research activities and the sales
force through its direct customer contact serve as repositories
of crucial customer and competitive intelligence. A subop-
timal information apparatus may alter intraorganizational
collaboration (Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy 2009). One
of our informants emphasized the importance of information
acquisition and transfer:
We infiltrate the market, we know our customers better than
anybody else in the company, they know us, trust us, and
share with us confidential information about competitors’
products and prices. Who else can do that in our company?
Nobody. . . . Everybody needs us to understand what’s going
on in the field. (Marc, sales manager, business services)
Knowledge
Knowledge refers to a capacity to exercise judgment and act
(Sveiby 2001) and is a function of experience, contextual ex-
pertise, and interpretation (Davenport, De Long, and Beers
1998). Often implicit, knowledge when harnessed “can result
in wisdom that may be directed towards a plethora of op-
erational tasks” (Bennett and Gabriel 1999, p. 213). Market
orientation demands the transfer of knowledge across func-
tions. Jim discusses this:
In today’s competitive world, knowledge differentiates our
salespeople from competition. Sales processes are changing,
and when you are in a consultative sales environment, you
need to have an in-depth knowledge of your products and

62 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
what value they offer because your customer is going to quiz
you forever . . . and you cannot tell him/her that you are not
sure. It makes marketing’s job more interesting since they
have to ensure that salespeople have the adequate level of
product knowledge to win business. (Jim, sales manager, IT
[information technology])
Decision
Optimal managerial decisions (i.e., choices among available
alternatives) require rationality, appreciation of common goals,
availability of accurate information, and sensitivity to the
business environment (Dean and Sharfman 1996). Successful
strategy processes are aided by participative, synergistic, and
less autonomous decision making within firms (Krohmer,
Homberg, and Workman 2002; Malshe and Sohi 2009b), as
substantiated by one of our informants:
If marketing wants us to be fully on board, they must include
us in the decision-making processes. Unless we have a voice
in company’s decisions, we feel excluded . . . and that is not
a good feeling to have as a salesperson. (Pam, salesperson,
consumer packaged goods [CPG])
Resources
The financial, physical, and human capital that encompasses a
firm’s resources can represent a means of competitive advantage
if strategically managed and properly leveraged (Crook et al.
2008). Because resources are finite and subject to allocation
across disciplines, functional integration is needed to ensure
that they are most advantageously deployed for the good of
the enterprise. As one participant offered:
Nothing hurts the strategic processes more than the non-
availability of resources . . . be it customer information,
competitive insights, or monetary resources; it is absolutely
necessary that these resources flow freely and reach whichever
corner of the firm that needs it. Is it challenging . . . you bet
it is; but with a lot of effort, one can get good at it. (Teresa,
general manager, engineering)
Culture
Organizational culture is defined as “a complex set of values,
beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that define the way in
which a firm conducts its business” (Barney 1986, p. 657).
While cultural differences are a primary source of friction
between sales and marketing (Beverland, Steel, and Dapiran
2006), an underlying “market-oriented” culture (in which
market-oriented values, norms, artifacts, and behaviors are
inculcated across functions) provides the means of bringing
organizational entities together (Homburg and Pflesser 2000).
Lara offers her views:
While we like to believe that we are both working to serve
our customer, we view the world so differently. Our cultural
orientations are vastly different, and for over the past two
years, we have been trying to bring these in harmony so that
we recognize the differences and work through them. (Lara,
sales manager, health care)
The eight levers (see Table 2) may not be exhaustive. How-
ever, if adequately shared along the organization’s hierarchy
and structure, they contribute to organizational synergy. See
Table 2 for a synergistic levers summary. We now address how
firms may develop market-based capabilities as positive con-
sequences of synergistic relationships within the organization
that are enabled by the eight levers.
Creating Market-Based Capabilities
Scholars utilizing the resource-based view have proposed a
number of capabilities that firms must build in order to enjoy
a sustainable competitive advantage. A careful analysis of the
overlaps in various scholarly perspectives on market-based ca-
pabilities suggests that the following market-based capabilities
are critical: (1) market sensing, (2) new product development
and launch, (3) supply chain management, (4) CRM, and
(5) marketing planning and implementation (Atuahene-Gima
2003; Day 1994; Vorhies and Morgan 2005).
Given that firms employ these capabilities to maximize
value for customers, channel members, and other external
entities, SMI plays a crucial role in nurturing and deploying
them. Specifically, we argue that a firm’s ability to achieve the
desired strategic outcomes is contingent upon (1) firm’s SMI
functioning optimally; (2) the SMI, as a cohesive unit, being
able to employ the key levers in relation to other functional
areas; and (3) these multiple functional areas being able to
circumvent the potential pitfalls of internal competition and
power en route to the development of market-based capabili-
ties. Below, we discuss each of the capabilities.
Market-Sensing Capability
Day (1994) notes that developing market sensing requires
that various departments within the firm engage in a series of
well-coordinated information processes and build a well-func-
tioning cognitive apparatus so that it can learn from customers,
competitors, and channel members, and act on events and
trends in present and prospective markets. The organizational
learning literature, too, emphasizes the criticality of collect-
ing, disseminating, and making sense of information to make
superior strategic decisions (March 1991; Nonaka 1994).
Thus, interdisciplinary information processes enable the
firm to develop the ability to engage in thoughtful and antici-
patory market sensing and come up with a collective response

Winter 2012 63
to the emerging opportunity and threat. Sales and marketing
must transmit market information to departments as diverse
as finance, accounting, manufacturing, human resources, and
R&D to ensure that firm responds collectively to the market
information.
One of our big customers needed a new system. . . . In this
case, the salesperson did a great job as far as identifying the real
need and the buying criteria, which really allowed us within
the firm to focus on what specific designs we could come up
with for that customer . . . so it was a well-coordinated effort
where sales, marketing, R&D, and manufacturing together
were able to come up with some options that really created
additional value for our customer. (John, marketing, industrial
engineering)
Intra-organizational coordination ensures that firms de-
velop superior sensing capability. Thus, when the firm treats
information/knowledge as an important resource and shares
it freely within the organization, the firm remains a learning
entity. Organizational culture must enable various depart-
ments to support processes crucial to the firm’s market-sensing
apparatus. The SMI dynamic, in the context of other depart-
ments, may positively or negatively affect firm’s market-sensing
ability in two ways.
First, interface research suggests that marketers are focused
on broader, macrolevel market trends. Salespeople, on the
other hand, focus most of their attention on the develop-
ments in their respective territories (Kotler, Rackham, and
Krishnaswamy 2006; Malshe and Sohi 2009a). This enables
them to obtain specific, detailed, and up-to-date market,
customer, and competitor information often unavailable to
others within the firm (Rapp et al. 2006).
Multiple departments within the firm are consumers of
market data. For example, R&D may benefit from microlevel
key customer insights, whereas manufacturing and logistics
Table 2
Synergistic Lever Summary
Synergistic
Levers Definition
Potential Effect on
SMI at the Interface
Justification for SMI
at the Interface
Vision The organizational leaders’ desired and
articulated future
Eases communication of the
organization’s objectives and guides
and empowers follower’s actions
Guenzi and Troilo (2006); Krohmer,
Homberg, and Workman (2002)
Alignment Commonality in goals and strategy
along with a facilitating structure that
ideally (but by no means necessarily)
emanates from a shared vision
Represents key drivers of improved
relationships between marketing and
sales and favors the elimination of
interfunctional silos
Malshe and Sohi (2009a, 2009b)
Processes Activities that managers engage in to
get things done
Dictates and defines the way that
functional entities within the
organization interact and favors less
ambiguous roles, responsibilities,
transitional procedures, and rules of
engagement
Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman
(2002)
Information What forms and transforms
representations
Represents the essence of
communication and interpersonal
interaction, and favors coordination
and cooperation
Jaworski and Kohli (1993); Le Meunier-
FitzHugh and Piercy (2009)
Knowledge The capacity to exercise judgment and
act
Results in wisdom and favors mutual
understanding
Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman
(2002)
Decision A resolution among several available
alternatives
Links appropriate choices to
organizational goals and favors the
understanding of the distribution of
influence across functions
Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman
(2002); Malshe and Sohi (2009a,
2009b)
Resources Firms’ financial, physical, and human
capital
Provides functional groups with
the needed assets to accomplish
organizational goals and needs to be
efficiently used
Krohmer, Homberg, and Workman
(2002); Massey and Dawes (2007)
Culture Complex set of values, beliefs,
assumptions, and symbols that define
the way in which a firm conducts its
business
Represents the backbone of mutual
understanding and integration
mechanisms across diverse functional
groups
Beverland, Steel, and Dapiran (2006);
Guenzi and Troilo (2007); Homburg
and Pflesser (2000)

64 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
may need to understand macrolevel market trends. As a result,
it becomes imperative that sales and marketing personnel con-
stantly exchange data points and provide other departments
a comprehensive picture of the overall market.
For this to happen, there must be shared vision and a
greater degree of information process alignment across mul-
tiple departments. This may allow the sales and marketing to
arrive at common conclusions about firm’s information needs
(Dewsnap and Jobber 2000, 2002). In its absence, both sales-
people and marketers may not receive appropriate guidance
regarding market intelligence needs. Rebecca, a corporate
strategist notes how this dynamic may impair a crucial building
block within the firm’s market-sensing ability:
There is this information set that marketing is immersed in,
much of which sales could really benefit from to be more ef-
fective. Again, salespeople are getting all this great frontline
feedback, which marketing could really benefit from if they
had access to the right data. Having good communication
lines . . . that allow both marketing and sales to share their
data is of greatest value. (Rebecca, corporate strategy, IT)
Second, scholars highlight many factors that ail SMI, such
as turf wars, lack of respect for marketers, and thought-world
differences (Homburg and Jensen 2007; Hutt 1995; Malshe
2009). As such, these differences may inhibit a common vision
or the alignment of resources and information processes. In
such situations, salespeople may not feel motivated to share
information with their marketing colleagues. Further, a neglect
of salespeople’s input may impede future outside-in flow of
crucial market intelligence. This may starve the firm’s cognitive
apparatus of current market data, cut off other departments
from market updates, and negatively affect their readiness to
respond to market changes. Further, bickering within the SMI
may prevent it from incorporating other function’s ideas in
carrying out various information processes or from leverag-
ing knowledge to improve market sensing. Roger, a channel
manager, expresses his opinion:
The biggest value that sales can bring to the table is the voice
of the customer. They deal with customers every day that
gives them an opportunity to collect a lot of verbal as well as
nonverbal information. The thing is, if this information does
not travel back . . . then manufacturing, channel managers,
finance, R&D . . . none of us is going to know what is going
on outside. . . . We cannot use the information that remains
on the periphery . . . we remain cut off from the market so to
speak. (Roger, channel manager, construction)
The preceding suggests that an optimally functioning SMI
enables the firm to take a holistic perspective of the firm’s
overall information need and utilize the various information
process levers to develop a strong market-sensing capability.
Hence, we propose:
Proposition 1: Integrated vision, alignment, processes,
information, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture
will condition the optimal functioning of SMI, which in
turn will facilitate the development of intraorganizational
synergy across multiple functions, thus enabling the creation
of superior market-sensing capabilities.
New Product Capability: New Product Development and
New Product Launch
New products enable firms to maintain a meaningful dif-
ferentiation between their and competitor offerings. Hence,
we focus on new product capability (Yu, Figueiredo, and
Nascimento 2010), specifically new product development
(NPD) and new product launch (NPL) capabilities.
New product processes are complex. In order for a firm
to successfully develop new product capability, various de-
partments within the firm must (1) share a unified vision,
(2) align their various activities and processes, and (3) freely
share knowledge as the NPD process evolves. Given that it is
crucial that firms engage their customers and draw on their
resources in customer-driven NPD processes (Ramaswami,
Srivastava, and Bhargava 2009; Vargo and Lusch 2004), it
becomes imperative that marketing and sales together facilitate
those processes that (1) invite customers to contribute their
opinions, (2) streamline customer input capture, and (3) relay
customer input to appropriate departments so that firms can
collectively act on it during the NPD process. In other words,
a less-than-optimal SMI may have a significant effect on NPD
and its outcomes such as innovation, speed to market, and
uniqueness of the new product and its related market success.
Our data bring forth three key aspects in this regard.
In many organizations, salespeople collect valuable market
data about current and future customer needs (Singh 1998).
Successful customer-driven NPD processes require that such
information is constantly relayed within the organization—a
task that marketing must perform optimally. Ron highlights
this aspect:
I say that marketers are “tweeners” . . . we are in between the
field and engineering and if the customer in the field needs
something we need to communicate to engineering because
engineering invents the products. (Ron, marketing specialist,
engineering)
For NPD to be truly customer driven, marketers must
share their own vision of the new product with both R&D
and manufacturing. An imperfect SMI impedes outside-in
knowledge transfer and creates information gaps within the
NPD process. This is likely to decrease the firm’s confidence
in the supplied information and affect new product outcomes
such as product desirability or specificity. Production control
manager Aaron offered the following perspective:

Winter 2012 65
There are definitely some frustrations when marketing finds
out that they are not getting specific information that they
should be getting from the salespeople. . . . If you get infor-
mation that just does not fill in the holes, then it is not very
valuable information. Also, if the information is very vague,
then it is difficult to understand what the customer needs
are. . . . It also makes it very difficult for us to put together
a product that can really satisfy customer needs. (Aaron,
production control, industrial machinery)
A comprehensive customer-driven NPD process requires
input from a wide range of customers. Salespeople may feel
possessive and covertly resist marketers’ attempts to commu-
nicate with their customers, albeit purely for the purpose of
garnering their insights during the NPD process (Rouziès et
al. 2005). Thus, an imperfect SMI may inhibit marketing’s
ability to transfer customers’ knowledge inside the firm, as well
as prevent other functions from sharing their own vision and
expertise with them. Susan expressed her frustration:
If you get a client of high caliber involved early enough in your
new product cycle, your trust level is going to skyrocket with
the client. There is nothing like having a very senior-level tech-
nical person in the company asking them questions like . . .
well, have you thought about this? Then actual conversation
opens up with the client . . . and I’ve had salespeople fight me
on that. Their stance is this is my client and I don’t want to
introduce him to you and muck things up. I’m like no, you
should really do this for speeding up the cycle, perfecting the
product, and building credibility. . . . I still get push back on
that . . . and it’s a no-brainer to me. (Susan, senior marketing
manager, IT)
Such instances prevent many firms from developing a
well-rounded perspective of unmet customer needs. Further,
lack of optimal customer input may compromise marketers’
ability to effectively translate customer requirements, inputs,
and feedback during NPD stages into language that R&D
and manufacturing understand, leading to less than desired
new product outcomes.
Often the lack of field participation in NPD decisions arises
from the sales group not being invited to actively participate in
the planning process. Instances such as this must be viewed as
missed opportunities that otherwise would allow multiple de-
partments to unify their visions, share information, and align
processes. The comments below bring forth this aspect:
We are continually evaluating, planning for, and executing
new product initiatives, from entirely new brands to new
package configurations and promotional packaging. While we
understand the need to be responsive, a sticking point is that
my group is evaluated on creating efficiencies and containing
operational costs. Therefore, we want to be sure that any new
packaging initiative is not only strategically sound but that
it will deliver results. . . . I get extremely frustrated when we
bust our butts and take a hit on our efficiency targets and then
the initiative delivers poor results in the market. Recently, a
major packaging initiative flopped due to weak response from
our wholesalers who we rely on to sell the package to retail-
ers. . . . During the evaluation, it became apparent that Field
Sales had either not been consulted beforehand or had never
bought in fully to the plan that was being pushed by Brand.
And here we jumped through hoops at considerable cost to
execute an initiative that had very little chance of succeeding.
Why aren’t they talking? I could have wrung someone’s neck!
(Steve, operations manager, CPG)
It is crucial that during the NPD process, firms are able to
allow customers to test product prototypes, collect their un-
biased feedback, and improve the product. An ill-functioning
SMI can negatively affect these activities. For example, a
suboptimal SMI, and resultant lack of access to important
customers, may prevent or delay marketing, manufacturing,
and R&D from gathering initial feedback from opinion lead-
ers on product prototypes. Further, if salespeople’s previous
experiences with the NPD process were negative (e.g., new
product features not meeting stated customer needs, or NPD
delays), they may question other departments’ vision, knowl-
edge, or their ability to bring out winning new products in a
timely fashion. Further, a deficit of trust within the SMI may
motivate salespeople to be less than transparent in relaying
customer feedback to marketers in an unbiased way.
NPL requires marketers and salespeople to work closely
with channel members and the marketing communications
group, among others. As such, activities related to NPL such
as sales forecasting, lead generation, media planning, and
message testing, and creating awareness and excitement about
the impending launch begin in NPD. A suboptimal interface
dynamic may weaken these processes. Paul, a marketing man-
ager shares his experience:
Many times, salespeople pay lip service during the test phase. . . .
They may look you in the eye and tell you, “yes, we will take
that message to the customer” . . . and when the actual product
gets launched in the field, they create their own message . . . or
they might use our message and say something like . . . “you
know, marketing is thinking about this, but I’m not sure it’s
gonna work, what do you think, Mr. or Ms. Customer?” They
might phrase it in such a way that the customer thinks it doesn’t
work, and they will take that message back to marketing and
say, “see, I told you it wouldn’t work—my customer said so.”
(Paul, marketing manager, food and beverage)
NPL success is determined by how efficiently firms handle
activities such as (1) targeting the right customers, (2) new
product promotion, and (3) channel management that
includes ensuring product availability within channels and
adequate promotional support within channels.
SMI dynamics dictate whether firms are able to execute
these processes. For example, if salespeople do not buy into
proposed marketing strategies, they may not support all aspects
of the new product launch. In-market demand data may not

66 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
make it to the channel organization, leading to stock-outs or
excess inventories. Further, customer visits and various sales
processes may not be well aligned with the communications
group, leading to untimely new promotional campaigns. An
ill-functioning interface may also cut off manufacturing,
R&D, or other channel members from initial customer feed-
back, which may prevent firms from coming up with a timely
and effective response to the challenges new products face.
Proposition 2: Integrated vision, alignment, processes,
information, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture
will condition the optimal functioning of SMI, which in
turn will facilitate the development of intraorganizational
synergy across multiple functions, thus enabling the creation
of superior product development and launch capabilities.
Supply Chain Management
The emerging marketing paradigm views supply chains as
value networks in that each channel intermediary is regarded
as a value contributor (Lusch, Vargo, and Tanniru 2010).
Further, given the increasing competition among different
value networks, a firm’s overall competitive advantage may
depend on which value network the firm is a part of, how
well-integrated and well-functioning this network is, and
how the various entities within this network interact with one
another to create enhanced customer value.
While the nature of value networks, their complexities,
and network membership may vary across industries, a typi-
cal value network for a firm includes entities both within and
outside the firm that play a crucial role in ensuring that the
network is well-functioning. For example, a value network
may involve departments such as marketing and sales, manu-
facturing, and logistics management. The customer-facing
end of the value network may include the various customers,
distributors, and reseller networks, while the back end of this
network may include third-party manufacturers, raw material
suppliers, and other manufacturing intermediaries.
How do SMI dynamics, when viewed within organizational
context, affect the functioning of firms’ value networks? Our
data bring forth the following perspectives.
For a value network to function optimally, the central firm
within the network, the network owner, must prepare reliable
demand forecasts and share those with all network members.
Further, optimal information sharing in this area ensures
that network members can provide timely promotional and
service-related customer support.
Crucial channel and market information flows to the firm
through salespeople since they spend a majority of their time
with customers and resellers. Further, activities involved in
market sensing and collective responding depend on how
well sales and marketing departments communicate with
one another and other departments. Because SMI serves as a
central node within value networks, an ill-functioning SMI
may impede the ability of both inside and outside network
members to integrate their vision and decision-making pro-
cesses, align their knowledge and information processes, and
forge a culture within the network that subscribes to a unified
set of values. Jill, a channel support specialist, talked about
the challenges her firm faces:
We are extremely integrated with our network partners . . .
and being the major player, we lead this network. If the in-
formation flow between sales and marketing is jeopardized,
the repercussions are far reaching . . . we won’t capture our
demand patterns well . . . our suppliers may not know what the
forecasts are. . . . In extreme cases, it can not only bring down
the entire chain but also raise questions about our credibility
in our partners’ minds. (Jill, channel support, agriculture)
If the firm’s value network is functioning well, rewards
come in the form of synchronous decision making within
the chain that contributes to enhanced customer value. As
the above quotation indicates, the less than optimal interface
dynamics may not only affect the functioning of the value
chain but also jeopardize the firm’s ability to lead the value
network. Thus, there are downstream ramifications as well,
as indicated by the following:
All too often our distributors get mixed messages with market-
ing saying one thing and sales saying another. The result is
confusion, internal unrest, and inconsistency in execution. . . .
We’re so much more effective as an organization when we
are singing off the same song sheet. (Bob, field marketing,
beverage)
Thought-world differences may motivate SMI personnel to
view their network partners’ roles and responsibilities differ-
ently. Salespeople may expect network members to help them
achieve greater market penetration and hence may emphasize
tactical activities such as pricing concessions or rebates for
channel members. Marketers may expect their network part-
ners to add value to the firm’s offering by aiding long-term
brand-building activities. This mismatch in the perspectives,
and the resultant conflict may affect the value network’s abil-
ity to serve the firm’s strategic objectives. Inadequate SMI
coordination may also introduce operational complexities thus
affecting network efficiency and hampering strategy execution
and value delivery. A purchasing manager at a CPG company
illustrates this point:
There is general mistrust between marketing and sales organi-
zations, and a feeling on each function’s part that they know
best. The big issue where it relates to my department is in
what I call “program creep.” Brand groups develop national
promotions, Key Accounts develops chain-specific programs
that may or may not jibe with national promotions, and

Winter 2012 67
Field Sales often adds still more local market promotions to
leverage things that are important locally (or to offset what
they believe are ineffective brand programs). This spawns inef-
ficiencies and we find ourselves sourcing promotional items
and producing point-of-purchase materials for a larger number
of programs than is probably necessary. This requires more
human resources and introduces complexity into the process
because now there are more programs and related details to
stay on top of. Perhaps even worse, one wonders what actually
gets executed in the field and to what degree. How does the
wholesaler decide what to support and how much material
to order? How much can a wholesaler salesperson keep track
of? Mixed messaging to retailers and consumers seems prob-
lematic as well. (Allen, purchasing manager, CPG)
Thus, we suggest:
Proposition 3: Integrated vision, alignment, processes,
information, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture
will condition the optimal functioning of SMI, which in
turn will facilitate the development of intraorganizational
synergy across multiple functions, thus enabling the creation
of superior supply chain management capabilities.
Customer Relationship Management
CRM entails that the firm be able to collect vital customer in-
formation, store and analyze it, and customize its offerings and
contact patterns in ways that benefit the firm and customer.
CRM processes require that the firm (1) regularly capture
customer data, (2) manage the databases using analytical
tools to derive key insights, and (3) forecast future customer
demand patterns and deploy crucial organizational resources
to serve its customers better.
Research indicates that CRM, when executed fully, can
reap many benefits such as customer responsiveness, enhanced
customer satisfaction and loyalty, and capturing and retaining
high value customers thereby increasing customer lifetime
value, profit efficiency, and firm performance (Krasnikov,
Jayachandran, and Kumar 2009; Morgan, Slotegraaf, and
Vorhies 2009).
One of the key resources needed for CRM execution is
the constant supply of customer information such as cus-
tomer profiles and their current and future expressed and
unexpressed needs. An exhaustive customer database helps
firms to holistically ascertain customers’ current and future
status and extent of demand. As firms begin to implement
CRM initiatives, the responsibility of collecting customer
data and purchase patterns and feeding it into CRM database
falls upon salespeople, who are not excited about these tasks
because they take time away from selling activities (Ahearne,
Hughes, and Schillewaert 2007). Firms may find it challeng-
ing to get salespeople’s cooperation during the initial stages
of CRM launch. Douglas, a CRM manager for a service firm,
said the following:
A typical salesperson is going to look at the CRM system and
then try to find out as many ways as he/she can so they don’t
have to do data entry, fill forms, update customer information
etc. . . . There are many reasons, one is they do not have a
ton of free time . . . and they certainly are not excited about
spending 45 to 60 minutes every day doing this when they
could be out selling to their customers. (Douglas, CRM
manager, services)
Further, salespeople feel a sense of ownership of their cus-
tomer knowledge that they have developed over time, which
makes them scarcely willing to share customer details with
marketers. They may fear that sharing customer information
with corporate marketers may render them redundant. Hence,
they may resist supplying the firm with key customer data
points and inputting customer data into the CRM systems
on an ongoing basis. The following quotation from Trevor
highlights the struggles firms encounter as they try to run
CRM systems:
Part of it is control . . . they [salespeople] think they are going
to lose control of the account if they share a lot with us . . .
ironically, that is the only thing I can think of. They are very
territorial about the customers . . . they own their customers,
absolutely. And they do not want to bring marketing into the
equation since they think marketing will want to take over.
(Trevor, marketing executive, consumer durables)
The SMI acts as a crucial node linking multiple depart-
ments within the CRM ecosystem. In addition to the delete-
rious effects discussed above, a breakdown within SMI may
negatively affect a firm’s ability to (1) relay customer insights
to the R&D department, thereby impeding the firm’s NPD
ability; (2) relay changing demand patterns to manufacturing
and channels, thereby affecting the availability of products
in the marketplace; (3) apprise corporate strategy personnel
of major shifts taking place in the marketplace, leaving firms
ill-positioned to meet future market challenges; or (4) help
customer service employees understand the changing customer
dynamics so that they can optimally position themselves to
serve them.
Overall, our informant insights highlight that an ill-func-
tioning SMI may compromise the firm’s ability to maintain
long-term customer and channel relationships, and ensure
their satisfaction as well as their loyalty. On a broader level, a
firm’s failure to forge a unified vision within the SMI is also
indicative of a suboptimal organizational culture where there is
a paucity of trust, cooperation, and collaboration between the
two departments. Overall, a firm’s inability to execute CRM
activities prevents other departments from playing an active
and timely role in servicing customers thereby hampering a
firm’s competitive advantage. Hence, we propose:
Proposition 4: Integrated vision, alignment, processes, in-
formation, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture will

68 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
condition the optimal functioning of SMI, which in turn
will facilitate the development of intraorganizational syn-
ergy across multiple functions, thus enabling the creation of
superior customer relationship management capabilities.
Marketing Planning and Implementation
Marketing planning and implementation entails that the firm
is able to come up with appropriate marketing strategies and
put in place the various tactical activities so that the strate-
gies are executed. Research suggests that successful strategy
execution remains a major managerial challenge (Aberdeen
Group 2002) and estimates of successful strategic execution
are woefully low, ranging between 10 percent and 30 percent
across studies (Bigler 2001; Raps 2004).
A new strategy may take many shapes and forms. For
example, it may constitute an NPL, introduction of a major
marketing campaign, or deployment of different field opera-
tions. Irrespective of the initiative, successful planning and
implementation requires a harmoniously functioning SMI
that employs many key interfunctional levers and invites
other departments to coordinate activities, all aimed toward
successful implementation. Conversely, an ill-functioning SMI
may prohibit firms from (1) leveraging intraorganizational
knowledge, resources, and capabilities; (2) aligning depart-
ments’ objectives and work processes; and (3) working toward
a common vision for implementation success. As one of our
participants stated:
When sales and marketing departments fight, it can derail
many of our programs. It begins with firms not knowing in
real time what is happening in the market . . . and once that
flow of information stops, it is really difficult for everyone
in the company to plan their work since you are not sure
whether your activities are having any immediate effects.
(John, marketing, industrial engineering)
Another case in point is an experience of successful strategy
planning and execution that was shared by Sandra, one of
our sales informants. Working for a major national telecom
firm, Sandra saw an opportunity for creating a new integrated
product for a key customer. Her insights revealed that cap-
turing this opportunity required many departments such as
legal, IT, logistics, finance, as well as general management to
work together. Working in her favor was the fact that she had
strong rapport with her marketing counterpart, Andy. With
Andy’s help, she could bring all the departments together to
share the same vision for this key account. Andy served as her
liaison within the firm and ensured that the flow of informa-
tion from the field to various corporate departments and back
was uninterrupted. Andy also helped her identify and tap into
critical firm resources such as previous market research on this
key account, manufacturing and distribution capabilities in
the proposed product segment, legal issues related to the new
product features, and so on. In summary, a well-functioning
interface helped her navigate intraorganizational barriers, le-
verage various organizational resources, and successfully plan
and execute the strategy.
Hence, we suggest:
Proposition 5: Integrated vision, alignment, processes,
information, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture
will condition the optimal functioning of SMI, which in
turn will facilitate the development of intraorganizational
synergy across multiple functions, thus enabling the cre-
ation of superior marketing planning and implementation
capabilities.
CONCLUSION
The firm’s quest to create customer value depends on the
synergistic coordination of many parts of the organization,
wherein internal resources and capabilities are effectively har-
nessed to create a competitive advantage. We described how
a suboptimal SMI may act as an inhibitor to success. At the
same time, we suggested that an optimally functioning SMI
at the interface of other organizational functions facilitates
the development of five core market-based capabilities. This is
dependent, however, on the firm’s ability to effectively harness
eight key synergistic levers. We integrate these levers into five
research propositions that underline the importance of the
SMI in achieving organizational synergy and the development
of greater market-based capabilities.
Organizations are intricate systems made up of complex
networks of individuals (Frank and Fahrbach 1999; Schein
1980). The search for intraorganizational synergy is critical
to facilitate interdepartment coordination and cooperation as
well as allow the firm to obtain better results than the parts
alone (Corning 1995; Haken 1973; Marinescu, Toma, and
Ianole 2008). Nevertheless, achieving organizational synergy
is far from being simple, and the managerial literature tells
countless stories of unsuccessful experiences (Goold and
Campbell 1998). Indeed, the quest for synergy often becomes
an obsession for unprepared organizations, managers, and
teams lacking clear goals, adequate support, or requisite skills
(Goold and Campbell 1998).
We propose that SMI synergy is a key determinant of or-
ganizational synergy and market-based performance. While
affecting the dispersion of market-based knowledge that
orients firm strategy (Jaworski and Kohli 1993), marketing
and sales also represent the ultimate vectors of customer cash
flow (Ambler 2003) and channel to customer value creation.
Hence, it is important to focus on the SMI at the interface
of other organizational functions such as general manage-
ment, finance/accounting, manufacturing, IT, legal, logistic,

Winter 2012 69
human resources, and R&D. Dysfunctional SMI conflicts
may occur from unshared vision, alignment, processes, infor-
mation, knowledge, decisions, resources, and culture at the
organizational, interfunctional, or interpersonal levels, and in
turn inhibit the firm’s development of critical market-based
capabilities that span functional boundaries.
The proposed theoretical framework is in line with the
perceived evolution of the marketing discipline where bureau-
cratic, functional, and self-contained corporate forms evolve
toward complex network mechanisms aiming at an enterprise-
wide cocreation of customer value (Lusch and Webster 2010).
Because customer-focused solutions are necessary to build on
transversal coordination, cooperation, and capabilities (Gulati
2007), companies are compelled to be responsive and flexible
with marketing and sales departments unseparated from the
rest of the organization (Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 2000;
Lusch and Webster 2010).
Although not exhaustive, our theoretical framework rep-
resents the “cement” of thoughtful coordination and coop-
eration between marketing and sales at the interface of other
key firm functions. Consequently, the framework provides
a straightforward lens to analyze complex organizations by
assessing the perceived integration of each of the levers. This
approach is in line with concerns on synergy where means
of efficient interactions, especially for diversified firms, have
yet to converge toward a comprehensive theory and set of
practices (Beneke, Schurink, and Roodt 2007; Eisenhardt
and Galunic 2000).
CONTRIBUTIONS
The burgeoning body of work in the area of SMI has identified
a problem while beginning to delineate factors that facilitate
and challenge the smooth functioning of this interface. We
advance and deepen this exploration by situating the SMI
within the broader network of intraorganizational interfaces,
examining ways in which the SMI may affect a firm’s market-
based capabilities and subsequent competitive advantage.
Scholarly literature that integrates the resource-based view
of the firm with marketing capabilities has acknowledged the
key role of market sensing, new product development and
launch, supply chain management, and CRM capabilities.
While discussions in these areas have focused purely on how
firms may finesse each of these capabilities, we bring forth
how the firm’s ability to enact each of these market-based ca-
pabilities is dependent on how well it manages the SMI. Our
framework therefore situates extant interface theory within the
broader discussion of market-based capabilities. Specifically, we
highlight the fact that less than optimal SMI dynamics within
a firm affects not only its sales and marketing ability but also
in many ways the firm’s ability to create, maintain, and suc-
cessfully execute each of the above capabilities.
We discuss each of the market-based capabilities indepen-
dently. However, we suggest that when these capabilities inter-
relate seamlessly, the firm enjoys a strong internal competitive
advantage. As such, when a firm’s market-sensing apparatus is
functional, it may positively affect how it communicates with
its channel members and manages the value network, how it
keeps in touch with customers and nurtures those relation-
ships, and how it manages customer-driven new product
processes. But a suboptimally functioning CRM capability
may compromise a firm’s ability to forecast customers’ future
needs, thereby affecting both its supply chain and new prod-
uct capability. By highlighting the crucial role played by the
well-functioning SMI in ensuring the successful creation and
execution each of these capabilities, we make it evident that
a badly functioning interface may not only affect marketing-
related outcomes but can significantly deplete the firm’s overall
capability and market competitiveness.
Existing interface literature has examined the functioning
of the SMI using many variables such as communication,
collaboration, conflict, collaboration, and integration as
evaluation parameters. By situating this interface within the
discussion of organizational capabilities, our findings highlight
that (1) a lack of attention to these crucial interface elements
has the potential to affect broader organizational-level per-
formance parameters, and (2) this effect is mediated through
the firm’s market-based capabilities. Therefore, we assert that
the root causes of a firm’s ineffectiveness in nurturing and
executing market-based capabilities may at times be traced
to an ill-functioning interface.
FUTURE RESEARCH
Several future research avenues may exist beyond this seminal
work. First, we suggest breaking down our research proposi-
tions into testable hypotheses to examine the extent to which
the proposed levers attenuate the marketing and sales func-
tions’ dysfunctional conflicts. Also, we encourage further
research to validate the likelihood of using the proposed levers
to attenuate cross-functional conflicts between the marketing
and sales functions at the interface of other organizational enti-
ties. More in-depth analysis of particular levers and capabilities
may be useful in this regard. Another research avenue would
be to identify and determine the moderating effects that may
condition the impact of the eight levers on marketing and sales
integration, and the ones that may prevent or accelerate strong
SMI from facilitating market-based capability creation. Longi-
tudinal studies should also establish the link between reduced
dysfunctional conflicts and the development of market-based
capabilities for the sake of customer value. Finally, it would
also be worthwhile to study how companies integrate, change,
or develop the eight levers when acquiring other companies.
Under such circumstances, the confrontation of alternative

70 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
or opposite ways to operate the levers may affect the pace of
synergistic business acquisition and integration.
REFERENCES
Aberdeen Group (2002), “Bridging the Divide: Process, Technol-
ogy, and the Marketing/Sales Interface,” Marketing View
Point, 4 (October) 1–12.
Ahearne, Michael, Douglas E. Hughes, and Niels Schillewaert
(2007), “Why Sales Reps Should Welcome Information
Technology: Measuring the Impact of CRM-Based IT on
Sales Effectiveness,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 24 (4), 336–349.
Ambler, Tim (2003), Marketing and the Bottom Line, 2d ed.,
London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Amit, Raphael, and Paul J.H. Schoemaker (1993), “Strategic As-
sets and Organizational Rent,” Strategic Management Journal,
14 (1), 33–46.
Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku (2003), “The Effects of Centrifugal and
Centripetal Forces on Product Development Speed and
Quality: How Does Problem Solving Matter?” Academy of
Management Journal, 46 (3), 359–373.
Barney, Jay B. (1986), “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source
of Sustained Competitive Advantage?” Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 11 (3), 656–665.
Barney, Jay B. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.
——— (1995), “Looking Inside for Competitive Advantage,”
Academy of Management Executive, 9 (4), 49–61.
Beneke, Gerhard, Willem Schurink, and Gert Roodt (2007), “To-
wards a Substantive Theory of Synergy,” Journal of Human
Resource Management, 5 (2), 9–19.
Bennett, Roger, and Helen Gabriel (1999), “Organizational Fac-
tors and Knowledge Management Within Large Marketing
Departments: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Knowledge
Management, 3 (3), 212–225.
Beverland, Michael, Marion Steel, and G. Peter Dapiran (2006),
“Cultural Frames That Drive Sales and Marketing Apart:
An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 21 (6), 386–394.
Bigler, William R. (2001), “The New Science of Strategy Execu-
tion: How Incumbents Become Fast, Sleek Wealth Creators,”
Strategy and Leadership, 29 (3), 29–34.
Corning, Peter A. (1995), “Synergy and Self-Organization in the
Evolution of Complex Systems,” Systems Research, 12 (2),
89–121.
——— (1998), “The Synergism Hypothesis: On the Concept of
Synergy and Its Role in the Evolution of Complex Systems,”
Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 21 (2), 133–172.
Crook, Russell, David J. Ketchen, Jr., James G. Combs, and Samuel
Y. Todd (2008), “Strategic Resources and Performance: A
Meta-Analysis,” Strategic Management Journal, 29 (11),
1141–1154.
Davenport, Tom, David De Long, and Michael Beers (1998), “Suc-
cessful Knowledge Management Projects,” Sloan Management
Review, 39 (2), 43–57.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven
Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (4), 37–53.
Dean, James W., Jr., and Mark P. Sharfman (1996), “Does Deci-
sion Process Matter? A Study of Strategic Decision-Making
Effectiveness?” Academy of Management Journal, 39 (2),
368–396.
Deshpandé, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster
(2000), “Triad Lessons: Generalizing Results on High
Performance Firms in Five Business-to-Business Markets,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17 (4),
353–362.
Dewsnap, Belinda, and David Jobber (2000), “The Sales–Market-
ing Interface in Consumer Packaged-Goods Companies: A
Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 20, 2 (Spring), 109–119.
———, and ——— (2002), “A Social Psychological Model of
Relations Between Marketing and Sales,” European Journal
of Marketing, 36 (7–8), 874–894.
Duncan, Tom, and Sandra E. Moriarty (1998), “A Communica-
tion-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships,”
Journal of Marketing, 62 (2), 1–13.
Duncan, W. Jack, Peter M. Ginter, and Linda E. Swayne (1998),
“Competitive Advantage and Internal Organizational Assess-
ment,” Academy of Management Executive, 12 (3), 6–16.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M., and Charles D. Galunic (2000), “Co-
evolving: At Last, a Way to Make Synergies Work,” Harvard
Business Review, 78 (1), 91–101.
Ellinger, Alexander E. (2000), “Improving Marketing/Logistics
Cross-Functional Collaboration in the Supply Chain,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 29 (1), 85–96.
Ewing, Michael T., and Albert Caruana (1999), “An Internal
Marketing Approach to Public Sector Management: The
Marketing and Human Resources Interface,” International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 12 (1), 17–26.
Fisher, Robert J., Elliot Maltz, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1997),
“Enhancing Communication Between Marketing and
Engineering: The Moderating Role of Relative Functional
Identification,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (July), 54–70.
Frank, Kenneth A., and Kyle Fahrbach (1999), “Organization
Culture as a Complex System: Balance and Information in
Models of Influence and Selection,” Organization Science,
10 (3), 253–277.
Goold, Michael, and Andrew Campbell (1998), “Desper-
ately Seeking Synergy,” Harvard Business Review, 76 (5),
130–143.
Guenzi, Paolo, and Gabriele Troilo (2006), “Developing Mar-
keting Capabilities for Customer Value Creation Through
Marketing–Sales Integration,” Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 35 (8), 974–988.
———, and ——— (2007), “The Joint Contribution of Market-
ing and Sales to the Creation of Superior Customer Value,”
Journal of Business Research, 60 (2), 98–107.
Gulati, Ranjay (2007), “Silo Busting: How to Execute on the
Promise of Customer Focus,” Harvard Business Review, 85
(5), 98–108.
Haken, Herman (1973), Cooperative Phenomena, New York:
Springer.

Winter 2012 71
Homburg, Christian, and Ove Jensen (2007), “The Thought
Worlds of Marketing and Sales: Which Differences Make
a Difference?” Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 124–142.
———, and Christian Pflesser (2000), “A Multiple-Layer Model
of Market-Oriented Organizational Culture: Measurement
Issues and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 37 (4), 449–462.
Hutt, Michael D. (1995), “Cross-Functional Working Relation-
ships in Marketing,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 23 (4), 351–357.
Hyman, Michael R., and Ike Mathur (2005), “Retrospective
and Prospective Views on the Marketing/Finance Inter-
face,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (4),
390–400.
Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market Orienta-
tion: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing,
57 (July), 53–70.
Kahn, Kenneth B., and John T. Mentzer (1998), “Marketing’s
Integration with Other Departments,” Journal of Business
Research, 42 (1), 53–62.
Kathuria, Ravi, Maheshkumar P. Joshi, and Stephen J. Porth
(2007), “Organizational Alignment and Performance:
Past, Present and Future,” Management Decision, 45 (3),
503–551.
Kotler, Philip, Neil Rackham, and Suj Krishnaswamy (2006),
“Ending the War Between Sales and Marketing,” Harvard
Business Review, 84 (7–8), 68–78.
Krasnikov, Alexander, Satish Jayachandran, and V. Kumar (2009),
“The Impact of Customer Relationship Management
Implementation on Cost and Profit Efficiencies: Evidence
from the U.S. Commercial Banking Industry,” Journal of
Marketing, 73 (6), 61–76.
Krohmer, Harvey, Christian Homberg, and John P. Workman
(2002), “Should Marketing Be Cross-Functional? Concep-
tual Development and International Empirical Evidence,”
Journal of Business Research, 55 (6), 451–465.
Le Bon, Joel, and Dwight Merunka (2006), “The Impact of
Individual and Managerial Factors on Salespeople’s Contri-
bution to Marketing Intelligence Activities,” International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (4), 395–408.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Ken, and Nigel F. Piercy (2009), “Driv-
ers of Sales and Marketing Collaboration in Business-
to-Business Selling Organizations,” Journal of Marketing
Management, 25 (5–6), 611–633.
Leenders, Mark A.A.M., and Berenda Wierega (2008), “The
Effect of the Marketing R&D Interface on New Product
Performance: The Critical Role of Resources and Scope,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25 (1),
56–68.
Luo, Xueming, Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, and Xing Pan (2006),
“Cross-Functional ‘Coopetition’: The Simultaneous Role
of Cooperation and Competition Within Firms,” Journal
of Marketing, 70 (2), 67–80.
Lusch, Robert, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. (2010), “Market-
ing’s Responsibility for the Value of the Enterprise,” Work-
ing Paper Series no. 10-111, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
———, Stephen Vargo, and Mohan Tanniru (2010), “Service,
Value Networks and Learning,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 38 (1), 19–31.
Malshe, Avinash (2009), “Strategic Sales Organizations: Trans-
formation Challenges and Facilitators Within the Sales–
Marketing Interface,” Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17
(3–4), 271–289.
———, and Ravipreet S. Sohi (2009a), “Sales Buy-In of Mar-
keting Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents,
and Contextual Conditions,” Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 29 (3), 207–225.
———, and ——— (2009b), “What Makes Strategy Mak-
ing Across the Sales–Marketing Interface More Success-
ful?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (4),
400–421.
March, James G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in
Organizational Learning,” Organization Science, 2 (Febru-
ary), 71–87.
Marinescu, Paul, Sorin Toma, and Rodica Ianole (2008),
“Organizational Synergy Study Case: Codecs Romania,”
paper presented at the 5th International Scientific Confer-
ence on Business and Management, May 16–17, Vilnius,
Lithuania.
Massey, Graham R., and Philip L. Dawes (2007), “The Anteced-
ents and Consequences of Functional and Dysfunctional
Conflict Between Marketing Managers and Sales Managers,”
Industrial Marketing Management, 36 (8), 1118–1129.
McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
McKay, Donald (1969), Information, Mechanism and Meaning,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Morgan, Neil A., Rebecca J. Slotegraaf, and Douglas W. Vorhies
(2009), “Linking Marketing Capabilities with Profit
Growth,” International Journal of Research in Marketing,
26 (4), 284–293.
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1994), “A Dynamic Theory of Organiza-
tional Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science, 5 (1),
14–33.
O’Leary, Scott W., and Benito E. Flores (2002), “The Integration
of Manufacturing and Marketing/Sales Decisions: Impact
on Organizational Performance,” Journal of Operations
Management, 20 (3), 221–240.
Peteraf, Margaret A. (1993), “The Cornerstones of Competitive
Advantage: A Resource-Based View,” Strategic Management
Journal, 14 (3), 179–191.
Porter, Michael (1991), “Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy,”
Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter), 95–117.
Ramaswami, Sridhar N., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Mukesh
Bhargava (2009), “Market-Based Capabilities and Financial
Performance of Firms: Insights into Marketing’s Contribu-
tion to Firm Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37 (2), 97–116.
Rapp, Adam, Michael Ahearne, John Mathieu, and Niels
Schillewaert (2006), “The Impact of Knowledge and Em-
powerment on Working Smart and Working Hard: The
Moderating Role of Experience,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 279–293.

72 Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management
Raps, Andreas (2004), “Implementing Strategy,” Strategic Fi-
nance, 85 (12), 48–53.
Ratnatunga, J., R. Pike, and G.J. Hooley (1989), “New Evidence
on the Accounting–Marketing Interface,” British Accounting
Review, 21 (4), 351–370.
Rouziès, Dominique, Erin Anderson, Ajay K. Kohli, Ronald E.
Michaels, Barton A. Weitz, and Andris A. Zoltners (2005),
“Sales and Marketing Integration: A Proposed Framework,”
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 25, 2
(Spring), 113–122.
Salmons, Janet, and Lynn Wilson (2008), Handbook of Research
on Electronic Collaboration and Organizational Synergy,
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Schein, Edgard (1980), Organizational Psychology, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Singh, Jagdip (1998), “Striking a Balance in Boundary-Spanning
Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional In-
fluences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Job
Outcomes of Salespeople,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (3),
69–86.
Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver (1994), “Market Orienta-
tion, Customer Value, and Superior Performance,” Business
Horizons, 37 (March–April), 22–28.
Stalk, George, Phillip Evans, and Lawrence Shulman (1992),
“Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of Corporate
Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, 70 (2), 57–69.
Sveiby, Karl-Erik (2001), “A Knowledge-Based Theory of the
Firm to Guide in Strategy Formulation,” Journal of Intel-
lectual Capital, 2 (4), 344–358.
Troilo, Gabriele, Luigi M. De Luca, and Paolo Guenzi (2009),
“Dispersion of Influence Between Marketing and Sales:
Its Effects on Superior Customer Value and Market Per-
formance,” Industrial Marketing Management, 38 (8),
872–882.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to
a New Dominant Logic,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (1),
1–17.
Vorhies, Douglas W., and Neil A. Morgan (2005), “Benchmark-
ing Marketing Capabilities for Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 2005, 80–94.
Webster, Frederick E., Jr. (1997), “The Future Role of Marketing
in the Organization,” in Reflections on the Futures of Mar-
keting, Donald R. Lehmann and Katherine E. Jocz, eds.,
Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute, 39–66.
Wernerfelt, Birger (1984), “A Resource-Based View of the Firm,”
Strategic Management Journal, 5 (April–June), 171–180.
Wiersema, Margarethe, and Karen Bantel (1992), “Top Manage-
ment Team Demography and Corporate Strategic Change,”
Academy of Management Journal, 35 (1), 91–121.
Williams, Alvin J., Larry C. Giunipero, and Tony L. Henthorne
(1994), “The Cross-Functional Imperative: The Case for
Marketing and Purchasing,” Journal of Supply Chain Man-
agement, 30 (3), 28–33.
Wimsatt, William C. (1974), “Complexity and Organization,”
in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 20,
K.F. Schaffner and R.S. Cohen, eds., Dordrecht: D. Reidel,
67–86.
Yu, Abraham Sin Oih, Paulo S. Figueiredo, and Paulo Tromboni
De Souza Nascimento (2010), “Development Resource
Planning: Complexity of Product Development and the
Capacity to Launch New Products,” Journal of Product In-
novation Management, 27 (2), 253–266.

Copyright of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management is the property of M.E. Sharpe Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.