nach oben

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Erschienen in:

01.05.2012 | Original Empirical Research

Perceived marketing–sales relationship effectiveness: a matter of justice

verfasst von: John Hulland, Gergana Y. Nenkov, Donald W. Barclay

Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

There is a compelling need to improve the relationship between managers in marketing and sales departments. This paper argues that one critical way of enhancing individual managers’ perceptions of relationship effectiveness between these departments is to view the issue as a matter of justice and suggests that perceived marketing–sales relationship effectiveness is positively influenced by managers’ perceptions of organizational justice. Furthermore, it proposes that interfunctional communication has the potential to enhance the proposed positive effects of justice and hence needs to be considered and effectively managed when looking at marketing–sales relationship effectiveness. Data drawn from a survey of 203 marketing and sales managers in 38 consumer packaged goods companies are used to empirically test these predictions. The authors find that perceived sales–marketing relationship effectiveness is influenced by perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice. Greater interfunctional communication is found to further enhance the positive effects of distributive and procedural justice on perceived relationship effectiveness, but it does not contribute to the already strong positive effects of interactional justice. Furthermore, results reveal important differences in the effects of justice on perceived relationship effectiveness across the marketing and sales departments.

Vorheriger Artikel Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective

Nächster Artikel The duality of decisions and the case for impulsiveness metrics

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Following Cespedes (1995, pp. 31–44), we distinguish between “marketing” and “sales” managers in terms of their organizational responsibilities. Marketing managers assume broad strategic responsibilities for brand health, initiate and lead business development programs, execute and control the marketing plan, develop strong working relationships with ad agencies and train/develop the marketing group. Sales managers establish and maintain direct customer contact, work with orders, service products and/or accounts, work with resellers and solicit, interpret, and relay information from both customers and channel partners.

In this paper, we view “fairness” and “justice” as essentially equivalent notions. We prefer to use the term justice for two primary reasons. First, in our empirical work we use the justice measures proposed by Tax et al. (1998). Second, empirical work in marketing often refers to this underlying phenomenon as “justice” (e.g., Maxham and Netemeyer 2003; Maxham et al. 2008; Smith et al. 1999; Tax et al. 1998).

Note that while interdepartmental relationship effectiveness is an important and managerially relevant group-level outcome, our hypotheses and measures assess the perception of this outcome from the perspective of the individual sales and marketing managers working in the organization, in line with past literature discussed above, which has studied individual employees’ perceptions of interfunctional interactions (e.g., Dawes and Massey 2006; Ruekert and Walker 1987).

The consumer packaged goods industry typically requires both sales and marketing to play important roles in achieving business success. Given the complexities of data collection (multiple responding managers from both sales and marketing departments, across multiple firms) we decided to focus here solely on the CPG industry.

Separate questionnaires were created for the sales and marketing managers. The same measurement items were used in both versions, but appropriate wording changes were made.

All measures employed here are based on 7-point Likert scales.

In the interests of space, individual item loadings for these models are not reported here. However, details are available upon request from the first author.

This means that the average PRE for all managers of a given firm is modeled as a random deviation from the grand mean PRE value (based on information from all 203 responding managers). This deviation reflects firm-specific effects not otherwise incorporated into the model. This approach is commonly employed in HLM models and uses one degree of freedom. An alternative approach would be to include firm-specific fixed effects variables in the model. This requires the use of k-1 dummies (and k-1° of freedom). Given our relatively small sample size, we prefer use of the former approach.

In all models, the independent variables have been grand-mean centered (i.e., they represent deviations from the overall, cross-respondent means), except for MARKETING, which as a dichotomous variable is entered in its original form.

We report these as β coefficients, although they are technically more correctly labeled as γ coefficients, as shown in equations 3b – 3 h. And for equation 3a, the expected value of β_00k = γ₀₀₀.

Recall that the equations are estimated using grand-mean centered values for IJ, DJ and PJ. Thus, for an average firm, PRE is estimated by the constant term alone. The mean value of DJ is 4.40, and its standard deviation is 1.00.

Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396–402.CrossRef

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

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

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

Cobb, A. T., Vest, M., & Hills, F. (1997). Who delivers justice? Source perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1021–1040.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.CrossRef

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445.CrossRef

Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.CrossRef

Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. In M. Van Vugt, M. Snyder, T. A. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Cooperation in modern society: Promoting the welfare of communities and organizations (pp. 142–161). London: Routledge.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. E. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–209.CrossRef

Dailey, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305–317.CrossRef

Dawes, P. L., & Massey, G. R. (2006). A study of relationship effectiveness between marketing and sales managers in business markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21, 346–360.CrossRef

Deshpandé, R., & Webster, F. E. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53, 3–15.CrossRef

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2000). The sales-marketing interface in consumer packaged-goods companies: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20, 109–119.

DiBari, N. (1984). Marketing vs. sales! Is there really a difference? Sales and Marketing Management, 10, 51–53.

Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. J. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and Engineering: The moderating role of relative functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61, 54–70.CrossRef

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694–734.

Gopinath, C., & Becker, T. E. (2000). Communication, procedural justice and employee attitudes: Relationships under conditions of divestiture. Journal of Management, 26(1), 63–83.

Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 340–342.CrossRef

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399–432.CrossRef

Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating mechanisms for marketing and R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215.CrossRef

Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (1985). The R&D-marketing interface in high-tech firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2, 12–24.CrossRef

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

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

Hutt, M. D. (1995). Cross-functional working relationships in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 351–357.CrossRef

Keaveney, S. M. (2008). The blame game: An attribution theory to marketer-engineer conflict in high-technology companies. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 653–663.CrossRef

Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511.CrossRef

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 656–669.CrossRef

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationship. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.CrossRef

Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Levy, Piet (2011), “Sales Support,” Marketing News, March 30, 18–21, American Marketing Association

Likert, R., & Likert, J. G. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational relationships. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.

Lorge, S. (1999). Marketers are from Mars, salespeople are from Venus. Sales & Marketing Management, April, 26–32

Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 47–61.CrossRef

Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions: The differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 479–492.CrossRef

Massey, G. R., & Dawes, P. L. (2007). Personal characteristics, trust, conflict, and effectiveness in marketing/sales working relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 1117–1145.CrossRef

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B., & Taylor, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748.CrossRef

Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms reap what they sow: The effects of shared values and perceived organizational justice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of Marketing, 67, 46–62.CrossRef

Maxham, J. G., III, Netemeyer, R. G., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (2008). The retail value chain: Linking employee perceptions to employee performance, customer evaluations, and store performance. Marketing Science, 27, 147–167.CrossRef

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626–637.CrossRef

Montgomery, D. B., & Webster, F. E. (1997). Marketing’s interfunctional interfaces: The MSI workshop on management of corporate fault zones. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2, 7–26.CrossRef

Moorman, C., & Rust, T. R. (1999). The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63, 180–197.CrossRef

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? The Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845–855.CrossRef

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.CrossRef

Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131–141.CrossRef

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

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). The impact of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Performance, 10, 133–151.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.CrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

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, 113–122.

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

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 925–946.CrossRef

Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2003). Reactions to perceived inequity in U.S. and Dutch interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 303–316.CrossRef

Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294–304.CrossRef

Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 881–905.CrossRef

Scullen, S. E., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2000). Understanding the latent structure of job performance ratings. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 956–970.CrossRef

Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: The differential effects of perceived organizational support and leader member exchange. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 219–227.CrossRef

Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 356–372.CrossRef

Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1999). Selling partner relationships: The role of interdependence and relative influence. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 19, 21–40.

Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 7–23.CrossRef

Souder, W. E. (1988). Disharmony between R&D and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 5, 6–19.

Tang, T. L.-P., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61, 25–31.

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

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

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 201–246). Greenwich: JAI.

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.

Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol. 4 (pp. 595–629). Boston: McGraw–Hill.

Walton, R. E., Dutton, J. M., & Cafferty, T. P. (1969). Organizational context and interdepartmental conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 522–542.CrossRef

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 82–111.CrossRef

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1997). The future role of marketing in the organization. In D. Lehmann & K. Jocz (Eds.), Reflections on the futures of marketing (pp. 39–66). Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Workman, J. P., Jr. (1993). Marketing’s limited role in new product development in one computer systems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 405–421.CrossRef

Titel: Perceived marketing–sales relationship effectiveness: a matter of justice
verfasst von: John Hulland
Gergana Y. Nenkov
Donald W. Barclay
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 0092-0703
Elektronische ISSN: 1552-7824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0257-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2012

Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: a predictive validity perspective

The duality of decisions and the case for impulsiveness metrics

Measuring customer profitability in complex environments: an interdisciplinary contingency framework

An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research

Why generalized structured component analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation modeling

Is customer satisfaction a relevant metric for financial analysts?