Sales Buy-In of Marketing Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents, and Contextual Conditions

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Marketing Department Faculty Publications Marketing Department (CBA)

Summer 2009

Sales Buy-in of Marketing Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents, and Contextual Conditions

Avinash Malshe University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, [email protected]

Ravipreet S. Sohi University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/marketingfacpub

Part of the Marketing Commons

Malshe, Avinash and Sohi, Ravipreet S., "Sales Buy-in of Marketing Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents, and Contextual Conditions" (2009). Marketing Department Faculty Publications. 20. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/marketingfacpub/20

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Marketing Department (CBA) at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marketing Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 29:3 (Summer 2009), pp. 207–225; doi: 10.2753/PSS0885-3134290301 Copyright © 2009 PSE National Educational Foundation. Published by M. E. Sharpe Inc. Used by permission.

Sales Buy-In of Marketing Strategies: Exploration of Its Nuances, Antecedents, and Contextual Conditions Avinash Malshe and Ravipreet S. Sohi

Abstract This study uses a qualitative research design with the grounded theory method to explore the multifaceted nature of sales buy-in—that is, the sales function’s belief that marketers’ proposed strategy is appropriate and has merit. Based on 49 in-depth interviews with sales and marketing professionals, the findings indicate that obtaining sales buy-in consists of four key components: (1) objectivity and rational persuasion, (2) sensitivity and responsiveness to reality, (3) involvement in strategy creation, and (4) positioning for success. The findings also show that three organizational- level factors play an important role in determining sales buy-in: (1) eliminating interfunctional walls, (2) bridging the cultural divide between sales and marketing, and (3) developing interfunctional relationships. Last, sales buy-in depends on two contextual conditions—hierarchy and strategy absorption time.

he sales–marketing interface, which plays an important stream effects of such independent approaches become T role in a firm’s strategic processes, has recently started readily apparent during strategy implementation when the attracting scholars’ attention (e.g., Dewsnap and Jobber sales function does not buy into, and wholeheartedly sup- 2000, 2002; Guenzi and Troilo 2007; Homburg and Jensen port, the strategies and initiatives proposed by market- 2007; Homburg, Jensen, and Krohmer 2008). This stream ing (Lorge 1999; Strahle, Spiro, and Acito 1996; Yandle and of research indicates that when marketing and sales func- Blythe 2000). tions work well together, firms are in a better position to The notion of sales buy-in, which we elaborate on fur- identify customer needs and deliver the desired customer ther in the next section, reflects the sales function’s belief value (Guenzi and Troilo 2007). Scholars further assert that that a proposed marketing strategy or initiative is appro- for successful strategy creation and execution, these two priate and has merit. Several scholars have highlighted functions need to be well aligned and integrated (Cespedes the need for organizational functions to support each oth- 1993, 1996; Piercy and Lane 2003; Rouziès et al. 2005). er’s initiatives (Dewsnap and Jobber 2000; Homburg and However, the literature also indicates that conflict, non- Pflesser 2000; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Maltz and Kohli cooperation, and mutual negative stereotyping often ex- 1996; Narver and Slater 1990; Olson, Slater, and Hult 2005a, ist between sales and marketing functions throughout the 2005b; Rouziès et al. 2005; Ruekert and Walker 1987; Sriv- strategy formulation and implementation processes (Mont- astava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999; Varadarajan, Jayachan- gomery and Webster 1997). Further, scholars suggest that dran, and White 2001). Yet there is no research on what distrust and prejudices between these two functions make makes the sales function buy into marketing’s strategies it difficult for one function to appreciate the other’s role in and initiatives. The purpose of this paper is to fill this re- the strategic process (Homburg, Jensen, and Krohmer 2008; search gap by providing an understanding of (1) what Matthyssens and Johnston 2006). Specifically, in situations constitutes the notion of sales buy-in of marketing strate- where marketing handles strategy creation activities inde- gies, and (2) what factors either determine buy-in, or influ- pendent of sales, salespeople may view the proposed mar- ence whether marketers succeed in getting sales buyin. We keting initiatives as ineffective or irrelevant (Aberdeen do so by using the grounded theory method (Strauss and Group 2002; Dewsnap and Jobber 2000; Kotler, Rackham, Corbin 1998), with 49 in-depth interviews of sales and mar- and Krishnaswamy 2006; Rouziès et al. 2005). The down- keting professionals.

Avinash Malshe (Ph.D., University of Nebraska–Lincoln) is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas, MN; email [email protected] Ravipreet S. Sohi (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison) is Professor of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of Ne- braska–Lincoln; email [email protected] The authors acknowledge the suggestions made by Michael Krush and Eddie Nowlin on the earlier drafts of this paper. The authors also thank the three anonymous reviewers and the editor of Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management for their helpful comments. The first author ac- knowledges two grants for providing support for this research: Dean’s Summer Research Grant, Opus College of Business and the Research Assis- tance Grant (RAG) from the Faculty Development Center—both at the University of St. Thomas, MN. 207 208 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009)

This paper makes three specific contributions to the tives. Overall, scholars characterize internal marketing sales–marketing interface literature. First, it shows the as a planned effort initiated within the firm, which aims complex nature of sales buy-in and explicates its various to achieve strategic alignment between frontline employ- facets. Second, this paper outlines intraorganizational fac- ees and marketing using effective internal communication tors that influence sales buy-in. Third, the data show that strategies. The extant body of literature in this area dis- sales buy-in depends on two contextual conditions—hier- cusses the importance of internal marketing in trying to get archy and allowing salespeople adequate time to absorb frontline employees excited about and committed to firms’ the key strategic ideas. Our findings have several market- strategic initiatives (Ahmed and Rafiq 2003; Berry 1981; ing implications that we discuss later in the paper. Lings and Greenley 2005; Sasser and Arbeit 1976; Wasmer and Brunner 1991). This literature, which is mainly conceptual, suggests that in addition to using internal communi- Background Literature and Research cation, marketers may achieve alignment between them- Questions selves and an organization’s frontline employees by using influence strategies or instituting cultural change (see Gou- naris 2006 and Lings 2004 for extensive review). Scholars Sales Buy-In further suggest that internal marketing efforts may result in better interfunctional coordination, leading to increased We conceptualize sales buy-in as the sales function’s be- commitment from frontline employees to organizational lief that a proposed marketing strategy or initiative is ap- goals (Rafiq and Ahmed 1993; Tansuhaj, Randall, and Mc- propriate and has merit. Cullough 1988). In addition, the literature notes that the Although the notion of buy-in may seem close to the aim of internal marketing is to get frontline employees idea of sales and marketing functions “being on the same within a firm fully on board in the value creation process wavelength,” “being in sync with one another,” or “sales (e.g., Ahmed and Rafiq 2003; Lings and Greenley 2005; function being on board” (Ahmed and Rafiq 2003; Ces- Naudé, Desai, and Murphy 2003). pedes 1996; Donath 1999; Kotler, Rackham, and Krishnas- wamy 2006; Lings and Greenley 2005; Naudé, Desai, and Sales–Marketing Interface Murphy 2003), it is different in that buy-in pertains to a specific marketing initiative. Buy-in is also different from The extant sales–marketing interface literature high- compliance, where salespeople may be merely performing lights how the interaction between these two functions is some activity because marketing has directed them to do less than optimal (Montgomery and Webster 1997; Strahle, so, even when they are not convinced about the initiative’s Spiro, and Acito 1996). Scholars have pointed to many merit or appropriateness. Further, sales buy-in differs from problem areas that may afflict this interface. For example, sales–marketing integration (Rouziès et al. 2005) in that the researchers point to interfunctional conflicts, differences former focuses on salespeople’s belief about a specific strat- in goal orientation, tension regarding standardization and egy proposed by their marketing colleagues, whereas the adaptation, and marketers’ disconnectedness from mar- latter encompasses the overall extent to which activities ket conditions as problem areas. Similarly, scholars indi- carried out by each function are supportive of the other. cate that turf barriers and differences in culture or thought Two streams of literature—internal marketing and worlds pose challenges within this interface and strain the sales–marketing interface—provide the foundation for relationships between sales and marketing (Beverland, studying sales buy-in. Table 1 presents the salient per- Steel, and Dapiran 2006; Dewsnap and Jobber 2000, 2002; spectives from these two literature streams. As the follow- Homburg and Jensen 2007; Rouziès et al. 2005). ing discussion highlights, internal marketing consists of a Given the acrimonious nature of this interface, ex- set of planned activities and efforts toward getting firm’s tant research also highlights many factors that can allow frontline employees excited about the various strategic ini- the sales function to be supportive of marketing and vice tiatives. The sales–marketing interface, on the other hand, versa. Specifically, Cespedes (1993) indicates that firms deals with the macro-level issues at the interface between could institute or improve structural linkages, field mar- the two functions. The concept of sales buy-in serves as keting systems, and cross-functional processes to improve an important bridge between these two streams of litera- the coordination of activities between sales and marketing. tures. Sales buy-in is a potential outcome of internal mar- Dawes and Massey (2006) and Massey and Dawes (2007) keting initiatives and can help smooth the sales– market- argue for cordial cross-functional relationships, whereas ing interface. LeMeuneir-FitzHugh and Piercy (2007) stress the importance of sales–marketing collaboration, improved inter- Internal Marketing functional communication, and reduced interfunctional conflict. Scholars also emphasize that better collaboration There are several definitions of internal marketing. As between sales and marketing can enhance a firm’s ability noted earlier, Table 1 highlights some important perspec- to provide better customer value (Guenzi and Troilo 2007; S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 209

Table 1. Perspectives from Extant Literature Source Perspective Theoretical Domain: Internal Marketing (IM) Berry (1981), Sasser and IM is a company’s effort to satisfy needs of “consumer-affecting” personnel. Arbeit (1976) Gronroos (1983) IM creates the required “state of mind” of organizational employees. Tansuhaj, Randall, and IM is implemented by marketing using internal communication, and it may lead to increased McCullough (1988) commitment of frontline employees to organizational goals. Rafiq and Ahmed (1993) IM is a planned effort that leads to interfunctional coordination, among other things. Piercy and Morgan (1995) IM is a targeted effort aimed at removing interdepartmental barriers and achieving strategic alignment between consumer-affecting employees and marketing. Wasmer and Brunner (1991) IM is an effort to sell company’s objectives internally to frontline employees. Ahmed and Rafiq (2003) IM is a cultural framework and an instrument to achieve strategic alignment between frontline employees and marketing. Lings (2004) IM embodies treating frontline employees as customers and improving quality of transactions with them. IM should also result in satisfied and motivated frontline employees. Lings and Greenley (2005) IM is an effort to improve the internal climate of the organization that motivates front-line employees to perform their tasks well. Piercy (2006) Firms may use IM to “sell” the customer across functional and divisional boundaries. Theoretical Domain: Sales–Marketing Interface Cespedes (1993) Changing market conditions necessitate greater coordination between marketing and sales. It may be achieved using field marketing systems, headquarter liaison units, and management processes. Cespedes (1996) Concurrent marketing may lead to better coordination of product marketing, sales, and service management personnel. Firms may achieve this through cross-functional cooperation, establishing lines of authority, adjusting personnel policies, and enhancing information systems. Strahle, Spiro, and In general, sales managers do not set sales objectives that are consistent with a specified Acito (1996) marketing strategy. Montgomery and Webster (1997) Differences in goals between marketing and sales leads to conflict. Workman, Homburg, and Typically, marketing and sales are separate departments not integrated under a common Gruner (1998) marketing executive. Ingram (2004) Greater collaboration between sales and marketing is necessary to enhance interfunctional cooperation and provide better customer value. Rouziès et al. (2005) Integration allows for activities carried out by sales and marketing to be supportive of each other. Oliva (2006) Three key linkages—language, organization, and system—can help sales and marketing functions forge effective working connections. Guenzi and Troilo (2007) An effective sales–marketing relationship is important for superior value creation. Homburg and Jensen (2007) There are differences in the thought worlds of marketing and sales. Some of these lower market performance, and others enhance market performance. Homburg, Jensen, and Most successful configurations have a high structural linkage between marketing and sales with a Krohmer (2008) high degree of knowledge sharing.

Ingram 2004). Further, initiatives such as sharing knowl- Unresolved Issues and Research Questions edge, maintaining open lines of communication, providing supportive leadership, bridging the thought world The literature on internal marketing and the sales–mar- divide, and removing turf barriers may also forge stron- keting interface reveals important research gaps and un- ger linkages between sales and marketing (Cespedes 1993; resolved issues. Specifically, internal marketing litera- Dewsnap and Jobber 2000, 2002; Homburg and Jensen ture emphasizes that marketers must work toward getting 2007; Homburg, Jensen, and Krohmer 2008; Ingram 2004; salespeople’s buy-in of their marketing strategies. It does Oliva 2006; Rouziès et al. 2005). Overall, this stream of lit- not explicate, however, what buy-in means, what it takes erature has pointed out the problem areas within this in- to get sales buy-in, and what factors influence it. Similarly, terface and focused on how to improve the dynamics be- the sales–marketing interface literature emphasizes the im- tween the two functions. portance of the sales function supporting marketing’s ini- 210 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009) tiatives to create superior customer value. However, it has marketing professionals. Second, the grounded theory not looked at the notion of buy-in, which may serve as one method was necessary because existing theories did not of the crucial preconditions for achieving an integrated, adequately explain the complexity of the issues we were well-functioning interface. Taken together, explicating the examining (Creswell 2007, pp. 39–41). nuances of sales buy-in will serve to bridge the gap be- Our use of qualitative methodology is consistent with tween these two literature streams. Relatedly, in this paper, an emerging body of research that has used a qualitative we address the following research questions: research design to study firm strategies and other important organizational phenomena (e.g., Bechky 2006; Cross RQ1: What constitutes getting sales buy-in of mar- and Sproull 2004; Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial 2002; Noble keting strategies within the sales–marketing in- and Mokwa 1999; Thompson, Rindfleisch, and Arsel 2006; terface—that is, what are the components of Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj 2007). sales buy-in?

RQ2: What are the important organizational-level Sample and Data Collection determinants of sales buy-in? RQ3: What factors influence whether marketers In accordance with the guidelines of the grounded the- achieve buy-in or not? ory method, we used a theoretical sampling scheme to se- lect both sales and marketing professionals as our informants. This allowed us to maximize the variation among Method concepts and gather perspectives from both sides of the sales–marketing dyad. We collected data using the con- We used the grounded theory method to explore these stant comparative method and terminated it upon reach- questions. Grounded theory is a form of qualitative re- ing theoretical saturation after 49 interviews. During the search methodology that enables researchers to obtain data collection process, we approached 35 sales and 22 an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon and de- marketing professionals to request their participation in velop an explanation or theory that is “grounded” in data the study. Eight declined the interview request for confi- from participants who have experienced that phenome- dentiality reasons, resulting in the final sample size of 49. non (Strauss and Corbin 1998). In this method, research- Our informants belonged to multiple companies, repre- ers collect data primarily through in-depth interviews sented a broad spectrum in the sales and marketing organi- using a sample of individuals chosen for their ability to zation hierarchy, and held a variety of job titles (see Table provide an understanding of the phenomenon. This non- 2). All informants had been in their current job for at least random sampling scheme is called theoretical sampling three years and were qualified to answer our questions. (Corbin and Strauss 2008, ch. 7). Its purpose is to obtain The firms they represented varied in size and belonged to a deeper understanding of the issues and develop expla- a diverse set of industries such as information technology nations and theory rather than provide generalizations. (IT), telecom, engineering, pharmaceuticals, financial ser- In grounded theory, researchers code the data to identify vices, health care, engineering, and industrial products. emergent categories and themes that provide an expla- Each firm had distinct sales and marketing functions (Kot- nation for the phenomena under study. During the data ler, Rackham, and Krishnaswamy 2006). collection process, the researcher conducts a set of inter- To maintain consistency in probing and depth of data views; analyzes the data; and based on the categories and collection, the lead author conducted all of the interviews. themes that emerge, conducts additional interviews to get The interviews were discovery oriented (Deshpande 1983), a deeper understanding of the themes, and identify new lasting between 40 minutes and 110 minutes. The inter- ones. This back-and-forth process of collecting data and views took place at a location and time convenient to in- comparing it to emerging categories constitutes the con- formants. Of the 49 interviews, we conducted 42 in per- stant comparative method (Creswell 2007, p. 64). Research- son and 7 over the telephone. We recognize that compared ers terminate the interviews when no additional insights with telephone interviews, in-person interviews may help emerge from the data—this is known as reaching theoreti- the interviewer establish rapport with respondents, probe cal saturation (Corbin and Strauss 2008, ch. 7). Sometimes deeper, and gauge their reactions better (e.g., through theoretical saturation is reached after 20 to 30 interviews; reading body language and facial expressions), but the an- at other times additional interviews need to be conducted swers obtained through the two different methods do not (Creswell 2007, pp. 66–67). differ much as far as quality is concerned (Emans 2004, p. There were two primary reasons we chose the grounded 30). We confirmed this in our analysis and through mem- theory method. First, we needed a detailed understanding ber checks. of the issues underlying the research questions; we could We began interviews in an exploratory manner so we only obtain this through in-depth interviews of sales and could focus on each informant’s phenomenological inter- S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 211

Table 2. Sample Characteristics Number Name Sex Level Industry Job Title 1 Adam M Middle Health care Brand manager 2 Allison F Junior Health care Marketing executive 3 Aric M Middle Publishing Regional sales manager 4 Beci F Senior IT Marketing manager 5 Ben M Middle IT Senior brand manager–retail 6 Bradley M Middle Publishing Regional sales manager 7 Camille F Middle IT Manager–field sales 8 Christine F Senior Telecom Sales manager 9 Daniel M Senior Telecom Vice president–sales 10 Dave M Senior Financial services CMO 11 Derek M Middle Pharmaceuticals Manager–institutional sales 12 Donald M Middle Pharmaceuticals Regional sales executive 13 Drew M Junior Industrial products Marketing support executive 14 Jackie F Junior Industrial products Sales support executive 1 15 Jane F Middle Pharmaceuticals Account manager 16 Jessica F Senior Industrial products Director–sales 17 Joanna F Senior Health care Director–sales of strategic business unit (SBU) 18 Karson M Junior Pharmaceuticals Sales representative 19 Keith M Middle Pharmaceuticals Account manager–hospital sales 20 Kristina F Junior Engineering products Marketing executive 21 Krystal F Middle Electronics Sales manager–Midwest 22 Kyle M Junior Health care Sales representative 23 Mac M Junior Health care Marketing representative 24 Marcus M Middle Electronics Regional sales manager 25 Mario M Junior Engineering products Sales executive 26 Marjourie F Junior IT Sales representative 27 Marsha F Middle Financial services Marketing manager–Midwest 28 Martin M Junior Electronics District sales manager 29 Megan F Junior IT Sales executive 30 Mel M Junior Electronics Sales representative 31 Miles M Senior IT Vice president–sales 32 Naina F Junior Engineering products Brand executive 33 Nancy F Middle Engineering products Brand manager 34 OJ M Senior Industrial products CMO 35 Patricia F Junior Electronics Brand manager 36 Rachel F Middle IT Field marketing manager 37 Rocky F Senior Industrial products Vice president–marketing 38 Ross M Senior Electronics CMO 39 Russ M Middle Publishing Marketing manager 40 Sandy M Junior Engineering products Sales executive 41 Sara F Middle Engineering products Sales manager–East Coast 42 Sargei M Junior Industrial products Product executive 43 Sonja F Senior Publishing Vice president–marketing 44 Steffan M Senior Health care Director of sales–SBU 45 Sue F Senior Health care National sales manager 46 Todd M Middle Financial services Field marketing manager 47 Tom M Senior Engineering products Vice president–sales 48 Valerie F Middle IT National account manager 49 Victor M Junior Pharmaceuticals Medical sales representative

pretations of buy-in (Glaser and Strauss 1967). We used a analysis, and we asked our informants to focus on “buy-in” structured set of questions for the interviews (see the Ap- at the functional level—that is, how the sales function, as a pendix). The sales– marketing interface was the unit of whole, bought into (or did not buy-into) specific market- 212 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009) ing strategies. By doing so, we steered clear of the phenom- qualitative data management program to maintain infor- enon of individual buy-in (i.e., a specific sales professional mant contact records, interview transcripts, field notes, buying into marketing’s ideas, while at a functional level, and other related documents as they were collected. Sec- the strategy not receiving a buy-in from the sales organiza- ond, we used the proportional reduction in loss method to as- tion). Further, the context of discussion was a specific mar- sess the reliability of our coding scheme (Rust and Cooil keting initiative and how buy-in did or did not work for 1994). We randomly selected 26 informant interviews, that initiative. asked two independent judges to evaluate our coding, Following the interview protocol, we allowed infor- and calculated the proportional reduction in loss based on mants to guide the flow and content of discussion, -solic the judges’ agreement or disagreement with each of our iting examples, clarifications, and related details as they codes in these interviews. The two judges had prior ex- spoke. We also maintained objectivity during the inter- perience with qualitative data analysis but were not in- views to reduce interviewer-induced bias (McCracken volved in the study. The proportional reduction in loss 1988) and made efforts to clarify ambiguities. This pro- for the current study was 0.76, which is well above the vided informants an opportunity to correct anything we 0.70 cut-off level recommended for exploratory research might have misunderstood or to elaborate on certain as- (Rust and Cooil 1994). This pointed to the appropriate- pects as they deemed necessary. We tape-recorded all in- ness of our data analysis and interpretation. Third, the terviews and transcribed them verbatim. The 49 infor- lead author asked an outside researcher experienced in mant interviews represented more than 52 hours of audio qualitative methodology to conduct an audit of our em- recordings and approximately 525 pages worth of single- pirical processes to ensure the dependability of our data. spaced transcripts. We used QSR International’s NVivo This outside researcher went through our field notes, in- software to manage all the data. terview protocols, coding schemes, and random sam- ples of interview transcripts and documentation to assess Data Analysis whether the conclusions we reached were valid. This peer- debriefing process (Corley and Gioia 2004) provided us Consistent with the constant comparative method, we with an opportunity to solicit critical questions about our analyzed the data on an ongoing basis. During this pro- data collection and analysis procedures. It also allowed cess, we first coded the information obtained from an inter- us to have our data scrutinized through other research- view using the process of open coding, in which we focused ers’ perspectives and ensure its trustworthiness. Last, we on and identified important in vivo codes—concepts based verified our interpretations and the accuracy of the find- on the actual language used by the informants (Corbin ings using member checks (Creswell 2007, p. 208). Specifi- and Strauss 2008, p. 65). We grouped the in vivo codes cally, we shared our findings with 15 randomly selected into higher-level concepts called first-order categories, based study participants and asked them to offer their views on on some underlying similarities among them (Corbin and our interpretations of the data and the credibility of the Strauss 2008, ch. 8). In the next step, we did axial coding, findings. Of these 15 individuals, we interviewed four wherein we searched for relationships between and among over the telephone. Our data interpretation and findings the first-order categories (Corbin and Strauss 2008, ch. 9). resonated well both with our peer reviewers and the in- This step helped us gather various concepts and assemble formants used in member checks. This helped strengthen them into second-order themes. These themes helped us un- the validity of our results. Further, it confirmed that there derstand the emergent framework. We must note here that was no significant difference between phone and in-per- throughout the analysis, we avoided forcing emergent pat- son interview responses. terns into preconceived categories (Gummesson 2003). Because we had a diverse group of informants, we Table 3 shows examples of our in vivo codes, first-order also assessed whether our informants’ responses dif- categories, and second-order themes. Table 4 provides ex- fered across informant-related variables such as gender, amples of informant quotations and how we operational- level within the organization, industry, experience, or ized concepts related to each specific theme. job function. We did not find any major differences. Fur- ther, consistent with Bendapudi and Leone (2002) and Trustworthiness of Data Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj (2007), we evaluated our insights and themes on three criteria: (1) applicability of In order to maintain data trustworthiness and ensure idea beyond a specific industry, (2) how frequently infor- analytical rigor, we took a number of steps following Lin- mants mentioned an idea/theme, and (3) insightfulness. coln and Guba (1985) and Silverman and Marvasti (2008, Even though many issues and insights emerged from our pp. 257– 270). First, we ensured that our data manage- data, in the next section, we discuss only those that pro- ment process was comprehensive and rigorous. To do vide new insights within the context and are not idiosyn- this, as noted earlier, we used the NVivo software as our cratic to any specific industry. S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 213

Table 3. In Vivo Codes, First-Order Categories, and Second-Order Themes for Buy-In In Vivo Codes First-Order Categories Second-Order Themes Being objective Objective Objectivity and rational persuasion Fact-based discussion Balanced Impartial—don’t push your agenda Justification Unbiased perspective Neutrality Explain rationale Have intelligent conversations Don’t sell us your strategies—tell us why they are appropriate Being rational Our world is different Openness Sensitivity and responsiveness to reality Allow us to ask questions; encourage Diversity questions Sensitivity Ask us questions and listen to us Not all territories are same Respond to our ideas; communicate back Customization Our contribution Participation Involvement in strategy creation Assess feasibility of strategies Give and take Platforms—advisory boards Come into our accounts with us We will test your ideas Take your constructs out to the field Negotiation with field force We have a say in the process Provide consistent support Backing Positioning for success Utility of what is being sent to us Prepare Add value to our work Help us be successful Competitive advantage

Findings importance of sales buy-in, she mentioned that it was com- paratively easy to put together marketing collateral. In her RQ1: What Constitutes Getting Sales Buy-In of Market- opinion, getting sales buy-in was the most crucial and diffi- ing Strategies Within the Sales–Marketing Interface? cult part of strategy execution: It is easy to put together a communication package and At the outset, we wish to emphasize that the concept different sales literature … the media and all that stuff. of buyin was important and pertinent to our informants. It is easy to get all that. The real issue is whether your Although the academic literature has not specifically -ad sales force buys into it. … Are your reps willing, pre- dressed this phenomenon, practitioners found the notion pared, enthusiastic, trained, and excited about execut- of buy-in crucial when it comes to strategy creation and ex- ing the strategy. [Sara, Sales Manager] ecution across the sales–marketing interface. Daniel and OJ’s quotations are very pertinent: Sales personnel are boundary spanners and play a crucial role in ensuring that firms implement their strategies The key to success for launching many of these strat- appropriately (Singh 1998). Consistent with Sara’s opinion egies is having our salespeople buy into it and getting above, Tom highlights how having the best message or the their feedback. [Daniel, Vice President of Sales] best product may not be of much value unless the sales per- Your strategy will go nowhere unless you get your sonnel have bought into the story and made it their own: field force’s buy-in. That is the first major task. [OJ, I think buy-in comes from more than just incenting Chief Marketing Officer; CMO] them [salespeople] with a lot of commission to make Sara had a similar opinion. When commenting on the money on it. 214 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009) Representative Examples Representative Objectivity and Rational Persuasion discussed with the sales group numbers, past performance Brand manager provided with them the rationale behind going and shared what the need of hour was, after a mid-sized hospital segment. strategy assessment of what the new aimed realistic manager provided Marketing Discussed with salespeople can (and cannot) do. at medium-sized institutional buyers the strategy will do in the field and what challenges be. well how to Reality Sensitivity and Responsiveness feedback hearing salespeople’s for and utilize venues managers provide Marketing a new following meetings immediately such as weekly on strategic initiatives, initiative. for listen to their sales force, that they tangible evidence provide Marketers contents of a visual aid after getting negative the brand manager revised example, the field. from feedback coming up their inputs before sales advisory and take create boards Marketers with major initiatives. discuss strategies with informally marketers finalizing certain initiatives, Before their inputs. and invite the sales group finalizing some before in some regions “quick and dirty” test markets do Marketers initiatives. the brand manager example, for differentiated; sales tools that are create Marketers fingertips. at salespeople’s information site that provided Web a created the brand manager doubled a major account, Sensing intensity of competition for a customized plan. and created regions two budget for the promotional Table 4. Quotes and Examples 4. Table Quotations Representative Objectivity and Rational Persuasion the ones who heart are because they very close to marketing’s Strategies are and with facts, it objectively, present is when they I think what works it. create become suspicious. we may biased, are we sense that they … if figures guy is trying to sell me when some marketing I am a salesperson and know want to be sold on the strategy … I want them to … I don’t something. me that need to convince with me … they an intelligent conversation have is a big difference. I think there not sell me. . this is the best course . to Reality Sensitivity and Responsiveness told them that the physicians we the idea to us, presented When marketers of our respectful were I was surprised that they this approach. might not like I was impressed? objections … should I say, to for I had this big customer [hospital] that was trying out this program roll manager was very patient and he listened to all The product six months. over and had these long conversations We and complaints. questions, objections, my manager] was responsive that this girl [product helped because I realized they ended up modifying the program. We suggestions. to some of my managers] listen to our objections and questions … [marketing when they I like They discouraged. feel of the reps many if nothing is done in response, however, no one cares. like feel in Strategy Creation Involvement in Strategy Creation Involvement in some kind of vacuum and created strategies are marketing In this company, those strategies. job of communicating do a good don’t they internal customer your involve unless you marketer a good are think you I don’t it is the strategies … because at the end of day, your create when you those strategies. to execute going salespeople who are because it process development on in the product salespeople early Involve in the process. a say us to have allows Success for Success Positioning for Positioning the clutter and through need tools that can help us break we Ultimately, us those tools to provide look at marketing … and we ourselves differentiate and train us on those tools. I need things that can help me convince customers. I am busy meeting with my studies … … I need reports, the best products. have customers that we my this customer. so that I can convert me, can give marketing whatever S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 215

At the end of the day, they still have to believe the Marsha indicated how it helped getting sales buy-in story they are telling their customers. If they have not when marketers helped salespeople see the bigger pic- bought into the story and made it their own, then stra- ture and explained to them the rationale behind a certain tegically you can have the best message, the best prod- strategy: uct, the best everything … and still you might not sell anything because they do not believe what is being One of the things we struggled with initially was that sold. [Tom, Vice President of Sales] the salespeople did not understand why we were tar- geting midsize businesses. They were not seeing it as It is noteworthy that Tom mentions getting a sales buy- a big opportunity. When we shared with them find- in requires more than “incenting” (offering monetary in- ings of our market research and showed them why we centives) salespeople. This insight advances our under- thought it was big, they seemed to agree. I think what standing of the sales–marketing interface that, at present, worked was that they understood the “why” behind highlights the importance of compensation in driving our strategy. [Marsha, Marketing Manager] salesperson’s activities (Matthyssens and Johnston 2006; Many of our informants noted that even though sales- Menon, Jaworski, and Kohli 1996). Further, it is consistent people did not create strategies, it was important that mar- with Ahmed and Rafiq (2003), who argue that achieving keters appreciated salespeople’s ability to process strate- strategic alignment between marketers and frontline em- gic information. Relatedly, salespeople expected marketers ployees is important so that salespeople are internally mo- to have intelligent and convincing conversations about the tivated to serve customers. foundation of a particular strategy. Adam explained: Our data helped unravel the complex nature of sales buy- in—an area not discussed specifically in the marketing liter- It is a mistake to treat your salespeople as pure execu- ature. The data indicate that getting sales buy-in consists of tors, who will follow your directives blindly. It turns four key components: (1) objectivity and rational persuasion, them off if you are not willing to discuss with them the (2) sensitivity and responsiveness to reality, (3) involvement pros and cons of your strategy, or why this strategy is in strategy creation, and (4) positioning for success. appropriate. I have found that they are more open to accepting my strategies when I get them involved in Objectivity and Rational Persuasion discussing those strategies instead of just sending them memos … simple memos do not work. [Adam, Brand Manager] Our informants mentioned that getting sales buy-in is contingent upon marketing being “objective and fact based” The last facet of this theme was that salespeople did not in their discussions about upcoming marketing strategies like to see marketers sell their strategies to the sales force. with salespeople. Our data indicated that if sales personnel Our sales informants felt that it was insulting if marketers perceived that marketing managers were trying to push their tried to sell them on marketing plans. Instead, they pre- own agenda under the guise of a strategy, it was likely to ferred that marketers treat them as intelligent individuals turn them off and negatively affect buy-in. On the contrary, capable of assessing the merits and demerits of a strategy. when marketers (1) operated in a fact-based environment; This insight is consistent with a stream of internal market- (2) shared with salespeople the necessary background data ing literature that highlights the importance of enhancing that they used to create strategies; and (3) presented an un- the quality of interaction with internal customers as an im- biased, rational assessment of market situations (e.g., nature portant determinant of successful internal marketing (Frost of competition, growth prospects), sales personnel could see and Kumar 2000). However, it contrasts the extant trade lit- the broader picture and were receptive of their ideas. erature on sales–marketing interface (e.g., Lorge 1999) as Miles’s quotation below brings out how maintaining ob- well as the broader academic literature on internal market- jectivity and a rational tone in discussing strategies helped ing (Gronroos 1983) that advises marketers to treat frontline his marketing colleagues. The notions of being objective, employees as internal customers and sell them their ideas. rational, and fact-based are salient here: Keith, one of our informants from sales, was vociferous Like … for this product, we [marketing and sales lead- about this aspect: ership] came up with a new plan and we went to my To me, it is insulting to sell [your plans] to a salesper- sales group and told them, “look, this is what has son. When [marketing] people try to sell to me, it is driven our growth and this is where the future is … frustrating, because I know exactly what they are do- and this is how our new product fits in the big scheme ing. I would much rather they approach me with a of things.” We made it clear that it would not be an straightforward discussion and respect my intelligence easy sale, but also highlighted the benefits that they versus trying to persuade me. I have had people, who would get … as simple as your revenue will grow by try to sell to me, and they use our sales tactics and I 15 percent in the next two years, and you would be always know where they are going next. I let them go able to get three new accounts with this new product. through it and kind of smile, but it is not going to per- So, we asked them to do the math and they understood suade me. What will persuade me is being straightfor- for themselves that it was pretty attractive for them. ward, being sincere and simply talking about it. [Keith, [Miles, Vice President of Sales] Account Manager] 216 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009)

Sensitivity and Responsiveness to Reality that marketers could exhibit their responsiveness verbally (e.g., reacting to salespeople’s ideas and concerns) or in the Sensitivity and responsiveness emerged as the second form of a tangible response (e.g., modifying certain plans component of sales buy-in. We found that when market- based on sales feedback). ing personnel appreciated their differing worldviews from salespeople (Homburg and Jensen 2007; Panigyrakis and Involvement in Strategy Creation Veloutsou 1999; Workman, Homburg, and Gruner 1998), exhibited sensitivity toward salespeople’s field experi- Sale’s involvement in the strategy creation process ences, listened to their questions and ideas, and responded emerged as the third theme of sales buy-in. Both sales and appropriately, salespeople in return, were more open to marketing personnel felt that when salespeople were part what the marketers were telling them. of the strategy creation process, they felt more committed Daniel discussed what it meant to be sensitive to field to it and, hence, bought into it. As Joanna, the Director of realities. As he notes, if marketers understand the unique Sales with a healthcare company, indicated: challenges some sales regions pose, and take the initia- When you are in the initial stages of discussion about tive to customize marketing programs for those regions, it your strategy and its execution, you have to get the signals to the sales organization that marketers are sensi- buy-in at that very time and negotiate many things tive to what is going on in certain territories. It also sug- with the sales force so that they are completely on gests that they are actively engaged and thinking about the board from the start and you do not have many prob- sales process. This motivates frontline employees, and they lems later. [Joanna, Director of Sales] in turn become more responsive to marketers’ ideas and suggestions: As a part of involvement, marketers need to engage sales personnel in dialog so they are abreast of how mar- They [marketing] have focused on certain problem ter- keters develop strategy and are able to offer insights. As ritories on the West Coast that are not doing very well Beci noted: and they have tried to customize quarter two strategy for those three territories. Salespeople know that it is Many of our strategies failed in 2007 because there was difficult to customize strategies for each region in the no dialog between sales and marketing. … One of the country … that will be crazy. However, if you do it in a first things I did when I took over was that I initiated a few territories, learn from those territories, that helps a constant dialog between sales and marketing. I invited lot. More than anything else, it shows to the sales force sales leadership and middle managers to offer sugges- that you are trying to be sensitive and responsive to the tions on our plans. … It made a huge difference. … field realities. … You understand that one-size-fits-all They became stakeholders in the process and it helped approach may not work everywhere. … Once they see us greatly as we moved through the implementation that, they are more responsive to what you tell them to stage. [Beci, Marketing Manager] do. [Daniel, Vice President of Sales] While dialog is crucial, our data suggested that mar- Salespeople, owing to their constant interaction with fi- keting’s openness to negotiation during this process was nal customers, have valid insights into the potential success equally important in ensuring that salespeople remained of a new strategy. Another way in which marketers could involved. Our informants were mindful that marketing exhibit their sensitivity toward salespeople’s perspectives and sales do not always share similar orientations or objec- would be by encouraging questions from the sales force tives (e.g., short term versus long term, market share ver- while presenting a new strategy. Such a dialog would al- sus profitability) (Cespedes 1996; Strahle, Spiro, and Acito low them to understand the sales organization’s capabil- 1996). Hence, when such differences came to the forefront, ities and potential obstacles to implementing the strategy it was important that marketers were open to negotiation (Reynoso and Moores 1996). As Ross, a CMO, indicated: with the sales force on how the strategy could be adapted. When negotiations were fair, the sales force felt that mar- I always advise my marketing managers to invite ques- keters valued their involvement, and it helped get their tions and comments from the field. They are out there support for marketing’s initiatives. Russ noted: meeting customers … and no marketing strategy will succeed unless it answers all the issues and questions It is important to be open to new ideas from the field they face out there. We want to know what problems during the initial stages of strategy creation. You do they foresee in implementing our plans … customer is- not have to agree with every objection and suggestion sues, channel issues. … We invite questions. … Plus, from the field … but you have to be a fair negotiator. … seeking out questions goes a long way in letting the I go into these discussions knowing that they bring a field force know that we are here to listen to their per- different perspective to the table about many strategic spectives and issues. [Ross, CMO] and tactical issues … and I have to be fair to them and appreciate their points of views. It creates a great im- Our data showed that it was important for marketers to pression and helps them see that they are a part of this not only encourage questions from the sales force but also process [Russ, Marketing Manager] respond to their ideas and concerns. Our informants noted S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 217

Our informants highlighted that marketers could use our feedback … they were at least open about it and platforms such as sales advisory boards or cross-functional told us why. [Jackie, Sales Support Executive] teams to involve salespeople in the strategic initiatives. Such platforms allow marketers to seek salespeople’s feed- Positioning for Success back on issues such as feasibility of implementing a particular strategy, merits of specific strategies, and obstacles The final theme that emerged from our data was that the they foresaw at an early stage (Reynoso and Moores 1996). sales force was looking at marketers to “position them for Camille’s experience below clearly brings forth this point. success.” This theme is important for two reasons. First, in She attributes the success of a particular marketing initia- spite of the changing nature of the sales organization (Piercy tive to marketing’s proactiveness to involve the sales force 2006), scholars suggest that marketing still acts as an im- early in the process. As she notes, it helped iron out any portant support function for the field force (Cespedes 1996; glitches early: Matthyssens and Johnston 2006). Our theme indicates that Where they [marketing] did a good job was last year. the sales organization is looking for the kind of support from When they had an idea for a new product, they came to marketing that would give them competitive advantage in sales right away and said, this is what they were think- the field. Second, this theme indicates that even though sales ing about. They also came with us out in the field, went force members want marketers to take their feedback and in- into our accounts and got feedback … so we had both volve them in the strategy creation process, achieving sales marketing and sales together listening to what the ex- objectives remains an important focus for them. This insight isting customers said. Afterwards, they also formed confirms some of the evidence in the extant literature which sales advisory boards so that they would have data points out that at the end of the day, sales organization about prospects and existing customers. … That pro- members are results driven (Carpenter 1992; Lorge 1999). gram was immensely successful because we were all Not surprisingly, they want marketing to support them in excited about it and we had ironed out the glitches ini- ways that will help them succeed in the marketplace: tially. [Camille, Manager–Field Sales] If we feel that marketing is doing stuff and produc- It is not always possible for marketers to involve sales- ing material that is not benefiting us in the field in people in strategy creation. In such cases, marketers need any way, or as a salesperson, if I start questioning the to test market their ideas before finalizing a formal market- value of what is being sent to me, then I start focusing ing plan. Todd shared his experience in this regard: on other things, and completely disregard marketing Nothing that comes from HQ [headquarters] to our strategies because it is not relevant to me. [Bradley, Re- region is implemented unless we test market it on a gional Sales Manager] smaller scale. It serves multiple purposes. First, we can Victor highlighted another important facet of this tweak the strategy a little bit based on the response we theme: get during the test market. More importantly, it gives salespeople a chance to comment on the strategy and A salesperson’s life is busy. … We work 12 hours a let their voices be heard. They make suggestions and day, and if you do not bring a lot of value to us, we improvements … it gives them a sense of involvement, are not going to spend a lot of time on you because we which is so crucial moving forward with the strategy. don’t have that kind of time. So the perceived value [Todd, Field Marketing Manager] is big. … As a marketer, you need to come across as someone who can help us. Our last product launch was Our sales informants were cognizant of the fact that great because all through the process, we remember at times, marketing may not be able to incorporate their marketing managers saying … “how can we help you feedback and suggestions. In such situations, they wanted make your job better and easier? How can we help you to hear back from marketing about how their feedback be successful?” Wow, bring it on. Guess what happens was processed, and why they did not incorporate it. They in return … we also want to make sure that your prod- did not want marketers to leave them wondering about ucts and programs are successful, right? [Victor, Sales what happened to the feedback. This is consistent with Representative] a perspective on internal marketing that highlights the As he mentions, when salespeople see marketing man- importance of feedback mechanisms in achieving suc- agers making efforts to ensure that they receive appropri- cessful internal marketing (e.g., Hurley 1998). As Jackie ate support in the field, and add value to their work so that indicated: they are successful, it improves the internal climate within They [marketing] listened and showed [evidence] that the sales–marketing interface, and makes them feel excited they listened. So we knew. When they disagreed with about their work. They reciprocate marketing’s efforts with us, they would say … “we heard you talk about price their own commitment to marketing initiatives. This in- reduction … but we are not going to do it right now be- duces a positive cycle in that the salespeople feel respon- cause it will affect profitability.” … And they showed sible and driven to ensure that plans and programs pro- us some numbers … so that is the kind of feedback we posed by marketing are successful. expect. It did not matter then that they did not accept 218 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009)

In summary, our data indicate that the notion of buyin Bridging the Cultural Divide consists of four major components: (1) objectivity and rational persuasion, (2) sensitivity and responsiveness to reality, Scholars studying the sales–marketing interface empha- (3) involvement in strategy creation, and (4) positioning size cultural distinction as one of the important differentiat- for success. Our discussion above brings forth how each ing factors between the two functions (Beverland, Steel, and of these components, when handled appropriately within Dapiran 2006; Rackham and DeVincentis 1999). Consistent the organization, helps salespeople internalize their beliefs with the extant literature, our informants referred to a cul- about the appropriateness and merit of a marketing strat- tural divide between sales and marketing in terms of differ- egy and feel excited about executing it wholeheartedly in ences in short- versus long-term orientation, strategic ver- the field. sus tactical focus, or focus on philosophy versus field reality. Our informants mentioned that such a divide between sales RQ2: What Are the Important Organizational-Level De- and marketing functions was inevitable. They felt, however, terminants of Sales Buy-In? that it was important for both sales and marketing personnel to take the initiative and make proactive efforts to bridge Three organizational-level factors relating to structure, that divide. When salespeople see marketing trying to cre- culture, and relationship issues emerged as important de- ate a strategy that accommodates the goals of both functions, terminants of sales buy-in. We explore these factors here. it goes a long way in telling them that marketing is trying to make efforts to bridge the cultural divide: Eliminating Interfunctional Walls Salespeople are always going to be short-term and nar- rowly focused, if you will. … There is no denying … Our data indicated that eliminating “walls” that sepa- that cultural divide is always gonna exist. I think what rated different functions and created “silos” within orga- worked with this new product management group is nizations could facilitate sales buy-in. Many of our infor- that they made conscious efforts to bridge that gap. mants mentioned that their companies had functional silos … Not that they had a winning formula … they stum- that negatively affected the process of rationale sharing be- bled many times … but the fact that marketing was tween sales and marketing. They further noted that these making efforts was important to us. They were loop- barriers hampered the process of asking questions and giving in our short-term objectives with their long-term ing feedback. The silos also prevented salespeople from be- plans and programs. I think it is incredibly important ing involved in the process of strategy making. Our sales to build those bridges. … You gotta make things work. informants mentioned that when firms had distinct silos, … They may not work if left by themselves. [Mel, Sales they did not feel comfortable dealing with their marketing Representative] counterparts, which took away the possibility of fair nego- Bridging the cultural divide is not just a one-way pro- tiations with them. cess; salespeople have to make an effort to bridge this gap, Jessica, one of our informants, shared her experience. too. When marketing personnel perceive that the sales As she notes, her company has rigid silos that restrict the function is making an effort to reduce the gap, they are free flow of information. She suggests that marketing and more open to listening and responding to objections, and sales have to make efforts together to tear down the walls negotiating with sales group. This comes across in Naina’s and make sure that the two functions freely exchange quotation: market-related information. As she points out, when the sales function is able to understand what marketing is The effort to bridge this cultural gap has to come from both sides. During our last quarter strategy discussion, thinking about, they get a much clearer picture of the ra- it was very encouraging to see our field force being so tionale behind the strategies, and it helps them come on supportive. They did not like everything I presented board: … they thought that some of my ideas were esoteric Together you have to focus on eliminating those walls … however, clearly, they were not out there to shoot between functions if you want us to be on board with down my plan. … They were voicing concerns and your strategies. Companies have islands of informa- were very constructive in their feedback. That was en- tion. In our company, if you take the smoke pipes and couraging to me … it made me more open to negotiat- gather all of the smoke from each of them, we would ing with them and tweaking some of my ideas so that be a much better company. If we bring the information it could fit in their workday. [Naina, Brand Executive] back to marketing, they are successful only when they listen, make their interpretations known to us, and take Relationships action on what we tell them is happening in the marketplace. It helps if there are open lines of communica- Our data suggest that the interfunctional relationship tion because we can know what they are thinking. [Jes- between sales and marketing is another factor that deter- sica, Director of Sales] mines sales buy-in. Both sales and marketing informants characterized interfunctional relationships in terms of in- S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 219 terpersonal rapport between sales and marketing individ- specific role in implementing marketing strategies. Our in- uals. Our data also revealed that such relationships formed formants represented a wide spectrum of sales and market- across different levels within the marketing and sales hier- ing hierarchies. During our discussions, each of them em- archy. We observed cases where district managers or sales phasized how important it was to obtain buy-in at multiple representatives shared a good personal rapport with mar- levels within the sales organization. This shed light on an keting managers. We also saw instances where the vice important insight—if marketing strategies had any chance presidents of sales had a friendly relationship with many of success, it was imperative for marketers to get buy-in brand managers. from all levels within the sales hierarchy. What helps build such close interpersonal relationships? Martin, a district manager, who led a team of six sales Our data suggested that if each function appreciated the representatives, mentioned how important it was for mar- work done by the other, it reduced the feeling of alienation keters to get a buy-in from mid-level managers like him. and animosity, and helped build a mutual respect. Such re- In his quotation below, he refers to one of their failed ini- spect then helped forge better working connections and tiatives. It clearly brings forth the fact that mid-level man- stronger relationships between the two functions. When agers may send signals to their sales representatives the interface partners lacked mutual respect, it posed seri- about how excited they are about a particular strategy. If ous problems in getting sales buy-in. Krystal noted: salespeople perceive that their leader is not excited, it is likely that the team may not give that strategy adequate If you do not care about our world and respect what attention: we do, we are not going to give you the appropriate respect. It is like teamwork … and mutual respect is so Implementation can fail on a number of different lev- essential for a team to function. As a marketer, if you els. Last quarter, one of our programs for our top-ten IT think that you are the only driving force behind a strat- clients failed in my district, because myself, as a district egy, you are completely wrong … because unless my manager, I did not feel too excited about the program. salespeople work their butt off, your plan is not going … Obviously, I did not give it the proper attention it to have a chance. What I have seen in this company, deserved and that kind of cascaded down. … When my which is very dysfunctional, is that marketers really do reps saw that I didn’t support it … they didn’t either. not respect the efforts that my people put in. It is disap- [Martin, District Manager] pointing and disheartening. It alienates the sales force and they, in turn, do not care about you or your pro- Our data indicated the importance of getting buy-in grams. [Krystal, Sales Manager] from the bottom of the sales hierarchy as well. Patricia explained how one of her plans for business customers failed because the salespeople did not see any merit in her plan RQ3: What Factors Influence Whether Marketers Achieve and did not embrace it completely: Buy-In or Not? As far as I can tell, it was a very strong strategy. We had market data to back up everything we had Our informants discussed a wide range of issues related planned and the sales leadership was convinced to getting buy-in, but two factors—organizational hierarchy that this would increase our market share. Unfortu- and strategy absorption time—kept cropping up repeatedly nately, our salespeople did not see it that way. They in our discussions as contextual conditions. In particular, did not like the idea and did not see any merit in our our informants suggested that merely addressing the is- approach. The initiative bombed at the field level in sues such as eliminating interfunctional silos, bridging the spite of having a strong leadership support. [Patricia, cultural divide, or establishing close interpersonal relation- Brand Manager] ships within this interface may not necessarily lead to sales buy-in. There are some boundary conditions that, when Last, when the sales leadership did not believe in the met, may facilitate sales buy-in. They also emphasized that merits of a strategy, it created a huge hurdle. Leadership’s ignoring these factors may pose challenges for marketers support can determine whether marketing initiatives suc- in getting sales buy-in, even when they have attended to ceed or fail (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Our findings were the variables such as interfunctional silos or bridging the consistent with this assertion. As the quotation below high- cultural divide. In this section, we highlight how these two lights, Sara takes pride in the fact that marketing leader- conditions—hierarchy and strategy absorption time—de- ship in her company consults with her before rolling out termine the success or failure of achieving sales buy-in. their plans. As she clearly mentions, her blessings are vital if the plan is to succeed—a clear indication of the criticality of Hierarchy getting buy-in from sales leadership: They [marketers] start with the sales director (that is Sales and marketing organizations consist of hierarchies, I) and they give me a feel for what they are thinking. where people at different levels have different responsibil- They explain in detail the strategy and their programs. ities. Nonetheless, each member in this hierarchy plays a Then I weigh in and talk about, what is manageable. … 220 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009)

I also tell them what is just too much … also, if there have had a chance to understand why they are asked are things that my [sales]people cannot handle at this to do something. … If not, you will get a push back point, I make that clear, too. … I tell them to spread cer- and they will resist your idea even without thinking tain plans over a longer time period … and so we have through it. [Nancy, Brand Manager] lots of discussions about it. They know they need my blessings if they want my guys to execute their plans [laughs]. [Sara, Sales Manager] Discussion

Strategy Absorption Time Even though the importance of getting sales buy-in of marketing strategies is widely recognized, no one has stud- The second contextual factor our informants mentioned ied what it actually entails. In this paper, we show that frequently was time to absorb the new strategies. Specifi- getting sales buy-in is a multifaceted phenomenon that cally, they emphasized that if marketers are interested in consists of four key elements. Further, we identify three in- getting sales buy-in, they needed to give them an ample traorganizational determinants of sales buy-in and high- amount of time to ponder over their ideas and soak them light how organizational hierarchy and time for salespeo- up fully before asking for feedback, or expecting them to ple to absorb the key strategic ideas serve as the boundary commit their resources to those ideas. conditions that affect this phenomenon. Table 5 offers a Giving the sales personnel adequate time to absorb key snapshot view of the major findings of this study. In this strategic ideas was critical for two reasons. First, our sales section, we highlight how findings of this study contribute informants mentioned that their lives were busy. If they to the extant knowledge in this area. were to comprehend how different components of a strategy fit together and how the entire implementation- pro Theoretical Contributions cess would unfold, it would require them to carve out time from their busy schedules, reflect upon the various- com Trade and academic literatures on internal marketing, ponents of the strategy, and internalize how the strategy sales– marketing interface, and marketing strategy imple- might work. Second, they mentioned that most salespeople mentation, either directly or indirectly, allude to the im- liked to test marketers’ ideas with their customers and in- portance of getting buy-in for marketing strategies from terpret for themselves the feedback they received from the the sales force. Specifi- cally, scholars emphasize that in- customers. It allowed them to internalize the strategic and ternal marketing initiatives are necessary for enhancing tactical aspects of the proposed strategy. Taken together, frontline employees’ commitment to firm’s strategic goals, they expected marketers to allow them adequate time to and for achieving a strategic alignment between salespeo- absorb all the information and process it carefully, if they ple and marketers (Rafiq and Ahmed 2000). Further, the wanted them to be on board. literature on the sales–marketing interface (Homburg, Jen- What came across from our data was that if marketers sen, and Krohmer 2008; Kotler, Rackham, and Krishnas- pushed the sales organization to adopt a strategic initiative wamy 2006; Rouziès et al. 2005) and marketing strategy quickly, the sales force resisted such efforts and it nega- implementation (Ruekert and Walker 1987; Varadarajan, tively affected sales buy-in. Martin, a district manager with Jayachandran, and White 2001) indicate that it is impor- an electronics company, used the following analogy to extant for both salespeople and marketers to be integrated— plain what he meant: that is, be supportive of each other’s activities to offer superior customer value. We will park the idea and we will come back to it. We Even though all of these literature streams implicitly as- will talk with our customers about it and see what they sume the presence of sales buy-in, no one has discussed say. I have explained to them [marketing], we have to what it takes to get the buy-in. With this backdrop, the first roll before we can crawl, and we have to crawl before contribution of our study is in explicating the various com- we can walk. As much as I would like to go to straight ponents and nuances of buy-in. The notion of buy-in also walking, I am not at that point yet … so it is going to serves to bridge the literature streams of internal marketing take time. [Martin, District Manager] and the sales– marketing interface. Obtaining buy-in can be Nancy, a brand manager with a major engineering firm an important outcome of internal marketing initiatives and voiced a similar opinion: is necessary for successfully implementing marketing strat- You think salespeople are go-getters and they love egies and developing sales–marketing integration. speed of action, right? Not really. … When it comes to While buy-in plays a bridging role, our findings also digesting new ideas … the golden lesson I have learned provide insights that are contrary to what we find in these over the years is that if you want your idea to move literature streams. Specifically, internal marketing liter- forward, just introduce it to the sales force and let them ature emphasizes that marketers treat customer-affect- think about it for a while … then get their feedback. ing employees as internal customers and use various com- … Never push them into doing something before they munication methods to market their ideas to them (Piercy S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 221

Table 5. Summary of Findings RQ1: What Constitutes Getting Sales Buy-In of Marketing Strategies Within the Sales–Marketing Interface? Objectivity and Rational Persuasion Marketing remains fact-based and objective in their discussions Marketing explains the rationale behind specific strategies Marketers do not push their agendas under the guise of marketing strategies Marketers have intelligent and convincing conversations with salespeople Marketers do not try to sell their strategies to salespeople Sensitivity and responsiveness to reality Marketers exhibiting sensitivity to the challenging nature of certain sales territories Encouraging questions from salespeople while rolling out new strategies Marketers offering salespeople feedback regarding how they handled their feedback Involvement in strategy creation Involving salespeople in strategy creation at early stage Marketers remaining open to negotiation with salespeople during the initial stages of strategy creation Marketers creating appropriate platforms to enhance salespeople involvement in the process Marketers offering salespeople an opportunity to test-market certain ideas before a broad-scale rollout Positioning for success Marketers offering constant support to salespeople so that they succeed in the marketplace Marketers making salespeople’s job easier

RQ2: What Are the Important Organizational-Level Determinants of Sales Buy-In? Eliminating interfunctional walls Marketers being proactive in eliminating silos and encouraging free flow of information Bridging the cultural divide Both marketing and sales making every effort to bridge the cultural gaps between them Relationships Establishing close interpersonal relationships between sales and marketing personnel across different levels within marketing and sales hierarchy

RQ3: What Factors Influence Whether Marketers Achieve Buy-In or Not? Hierarchy Marketers ensuring that each level within the sales hierarchy has bought into the strategy Strategy absorption time Marketers allowing salespeople adequate time to ponder over strategies and not rushing in

2006; Wasmer and Brunner 1991). Our explication of the forth insights that are contrary to what we find in extant lit- theme “objectivity and rational persuasion,” however, in- erature, and offering new perspectives on these issues. dicates that contrary to extant belief, marketers’ efforts to Our third contribution lies in showing that several or- sell strategies to their sales counterparts may prove to be ganizational-level variables central to literature in strat- counterproductive. Our data suggest that marketers may egy and the sales–marketing interface are also relevant to achieve better success if they engage the sales personnel in understanding the buy-in concept. Specifically, the inter- objective, fact-based, intelligent conversations and do not face literature has shown the importance of organizational pitch their strategies to them. Similarly, contrary to extant structure, culture, and processes (e.g., Beverland, Steel, and sales–marketing interface literature that highlights how Dapiran 2006; Cespedes 1993; Guenzi and Troilo 2007; In- compensation may play an important role in driving sales- gram 2004; LeMeuneir-FitzHugh and Piercy 2007; Oliva people’s behavior (Dewsnap and Jobber 2000; Donath 1999; 2006). Relatedly, research in marketing strategy (e.g., Kirca, Rouziès et al. 2005), our findings indicate that monetary re- Jayachandran, and Bearden 2005) highlights how inter- wards alone may not ensure sales buy-in. For marketers to functional dynamics or organizational culture may affect obtain buy-in, salespeople have to be involved in strategy firm’s various strategic outcomes. Our findings related to creation and have to believe in the merit of the strategy. breaking silos, bridging the cultural divide, and building The second contribution of our study thus lies in bringing strong interfunctional relationships show that these stra- 222 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009) tegic variables are also applicable to obtaining sales buy- Our findings also suggest that it is important formar- in. Further, our findings bring out additional facets of these keters to involve sales personnel in strategy creation activ- variables that are important for buy-in. ities and make concerted efforts to show them the bigger Extant strategy literature alludes to the importance of picture— that is, how their ideas fit in the broader scheme the temporal and hierarchical elements in the firm’s strate- of things. Marketers must also understand that, at the end gic initiatives (Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999; Work- of the day, salespeople want to achieve their sales targets. man, Homburg, and Gruner 1998). However, nowhere do They look at marketers to add value to their day-to-day ac- we find an explicit discussion of how these elements may tivities and position them for success in the marketplace. affect the sales–marketing interface—a place where strat- Hence, marketing managers should make concerted efforts egy creation and execution take place. The fourth contri- to identify various avenues for adding this value. bution of our paper therefore lies in identifying the role of Strategy absorption time, one of the contextual condi- these two variables as boundary conditions in determining tions we identify, needs special attention from marketers whether sales buy-in happens or not. when it comes to getting sales buy-in. Our findings indi- The extant sales–marketing interface literature is pre- cate that marketers should give salespeople adequate time dominantly conceptual. Owing to the strategic impor- to digest and think through new ideas. Accordingly, when tance of this interface within market-driven organiza- planning major initiatives, it would help if marketers in- tions (Day 1994), scholars have highlighted a greater need volve sales personnel from the beginning, and introduce for empirical work in the area (e.g., Rouziès et al. 2005). key ideas early in the process, so they have enough time to Our study responds to this call and empirically investi- think about them. This will also ensure that marketers get gates this area using a qualitative research design. This well thought-out feedback from sales. in itself constitutes an important contribution to the sales Last, our findings suggest that getting sales buy-in must literature. encompass all levels within the sales and marketing hierarchies. This implies that when strategy implementation faces a challenge, marketers must identify which level Managerial Implications within the sales hierarchy is not buying into the strategy and work toward resolving the issues. Current evidence from the business world suggests that many marketing strategies fail because the sales force does not accept marketers’ initiatives wholeheartedly (Ab- Limitations and Future Research Directions erdeen Group 2002). Extant trade and academic literature indicates that such failures may be a function of sales and Before concluding, we wish to mention certain limita- marketing not being on the same “wavelength” or they be- tions of this study. We collected data for this study through ing “out of sync” with one another (Cespedes 1996; Don- in-depth interviews. If we had observed our informant or- ath 1999; Kotler, Rackham, and Kirshnaswamy 2006). Find- ganizations in situ for an extended period, it is plausi- ings of our study offer the first glimpse to managers in this ble that deeper insights into this phenomenon might have regard with respect to what sales buy-in entails and how emerged. One may construe the sample size of 49 as a pos- marketers may achieve it. Specifically, managers will- un sible limitation. However, we wish to note that qualitative derstand from our findings that getting sales buy-in isa studies in marketing literature (e.g., Beverland, Steel, and complex process consisting of four key components. If they Dapiran 2006; Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial 2002) have uti- want to get buy-in from sales, they need to work on many lized much smaller sample sizes. In addition, the grounded different fronts simultaneously; there is no magic bullet to theory framework guided our data collection effort, and achieve buy-in. we stopped collecting data upon reaching “theoretical sat- Our findings suggest to managers that while attempt- uration” when no further insights emerged from the inter- ing to get sales buy-in, it is advisable to be objective and views (Corbin and Strauss 2008, ch. 7). We would also like present rational arguments to their sales teams. Our find- to note that the sheer size of the sample is less important ings further advise marketing managers against pushing than maximized variance. We tried to maximize the vari- their agenda or treating salespeople as internal custom- ance in responses by selecting a diverse set of informants ers who must be sold on an idea. Instead, managers may from both sales and marketing functions. Further, our in- use various forums such as monthly meetings or confer- formants represented a wide range of industries, job func- ence calls and involve salespeople in engaging conversations, and organizational hierarchy. tions about the strategies. Our findings suggest that sales- There are many opportunities for future research. people prefer discussion versus directives. They respond Streams of literature such as internal marketing and the well to a conversational approach in strategy discussion, sales–marketing interface have alluded to the notion of rather than someone telling them what they should do. sales buy-in rather disjointedly. More work is needed to Marketers must keep this in mind during their dialog with develop a better understanding of buy-in. In this paper, we salespeople. identified several concepts related to buy-in. However, for S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 223 future research, it is important to understand the intricacies Cespedes, Frank V. (1993), “Coordinating Sales and Market- and interrelationships among these concepts. ing in Consumer Goods Firm,” Journal of Consumer Mar- It is also useful to study what initiatives firms could im- keting, 10 (2), 37–55. plement to obtain greater involvement of salespeople in Carpenter, Philip (1996), “Beyond Teamwork: How the Wise strategy creation. Further, what could firms do to elimi- Can Synchronize,” Marketing Management, 5 (Spring), nate interfunctional silos and bridge the cultural divide be- 24–37. tween sales and marketing? With respect to the sales–mar- Corbin, Juliet, and Anselm Strauss (2008), Basics of Qualitative keting interface research, scholars may examine how, and Research, 3d ed., Los Angeles, CA: Sage. to what extent, sales buy-in of specific marketing strate- Corley, Kevin G., and Dennis A. Gioia (2004), “Identity Am- gies contributes to the overall sales–marketing integration biguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin- within firms. Relatedly, questions such as whether buy-in Off,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 49 (2), 173–208. of a particular strategy guarantees implementation success, Creswell, John W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry & Research De- or if buy-in of a strategy affects salespeople’s perceptions sign, 2d ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. of the subsequent marketing strategies, would also be in- Cross, Rob, and Lee Sproull (2004), “More Than an Answer: teresting to investigate. Information Relationships for Actionable Knowledge,” Organization Science, 15 (4), 446–462. Conclusion Dawes, Philip L., and Graham R. Massey (2006), “A Study of Relationship Effectiveness Between Marketing and Sales The notion of sales buy-in plays an important role in Managers in Business Markets,” Journal of Business & In- bridging the internal marketing and sales–marketing industrial Marketing, 21 (6), 346–360. terface literatures. Although obtaining buy-in from sales is Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven implicitly assumed for sales–marketing integration and ef- Organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (10), 37–52. fective marketing strategy implementation, its role has not Deshpande, Rohit (1983), “‘Paradigms Lost’: On Theory and been explicitly studied in the literature. In this paper, we Method in Research in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, use the grounded theory method to investigate what con- 47 (Fall), 101–110. stitutes sales buy-in, what the organizational determinants Dewsnap, Belinda, and David Jobber (2000), “The Sales– of buy-in are, and what factors influence whether -mar Marketing Interface in Consumer Packaged-Goods Com- keters may achieve buy-in or not. Our findings serve as a panies: A Conceptual Framework,” Journal of Personal starting point, and we hope they stimulate further research Selling & Sales Management, 20, 2 (Spring), 109–119. on this topic. Dewsnap, Belinda, and David Jobber (2002), “A Social Psy- chological Model of Relations Between Marketing and References Sales,” European Journal of Marketing, 36 (7–8), 874–894. Donath, Bob (1999), “Get Marketing, Sales on Same Wave- Aberdeen Group (2002), “Bridging the Divide: Process, Tech- length,” Marketing News (September 16), 16. nology, and the Marketing/Sales Interface,” Marketing Emans, B. (2004), Interviewing: Theory, Techniques and Train- View Point, 15, 10 (October 4), 1–12. ing, Groningen/Houten: Wolters-Noordhoff. Ahmed, Pervaiz K., and Mohammed Rafiq (2003), “Internal Flint, Daniel J., Robert B. Woodruff, and Sarah F. Gardial Marketing Issues and Challenges,” European Journal of (2002), “Exploring the Phenomenon of Customers’ De- Marketing, 37 (9), 1177–1186. sired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context,” Bechky, Beth A. (2006), “Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role- Journal of Marketing, 66 (10), 102–117. Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations,” Orga- Frost, Frederick A., and Mukesh Kumar (2000), “IN- nization Science, 17 (1), 3–21. TSERVQUAL—An Internal Adaptation of the GAP Bendapudi, Neeli, and Robert P. Leone (2002), “Managing Model in a Large Service Organization,” Journal of Ser- Business-to-Business Customer Relationships Following vices Marketing, 14 (415), 358–376. Key Contact Employee Turnover in a Vendor Firm,” Jour- Glaser, Barney G., and Anselem L. Strauss (1967), The Discov- nal of Marketing, 66 (4), 83–101. ery of Grounded Theory, Chicago: Aldine. Berry, Leonard L. (1981), “The Employee as a Customer,” Gounaris, Spiros P. (2006), “Internal-Market Orientation Journal of Retail Banking, 3 (3), 33–40. and Its Measurement,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (4), Beverland, Michael, Marion Steel, and G. Peter Dapiran 432–448. (2006), “Cultural Frames That Drive Sales and Marketing Gronroos, Christian (1983), “Strategic Management and Mar- Apart: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Business & In- keting in the Service Sector,” Report no. 83–104, Market- dustrial Marketing, 21 (6), 386–394. ing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Carpenter, Philip (1992), “Bridging the Gap Between Mar- Guenzi, Paolo, and Gabriele Troilo (2007), “The Joint Contribu- keting and Sales,” Sales and Marketing Management, 144 tion of Marketing and Sales to the Creation of Superior Cus- (March), 29–31. tomer Value,” Journal of Business Research, 60 (2), 98–107. 224 M a l s h e & S o h i i n J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l S e l l i n g & S a l e s M a n a g e m e n t 29 (2009)

Gummesson, Evert (2003), “All Research Is Interpre- Matthyssens, Paul, and Wesley J. Johnston (2006), “Market- tive!” Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 18 (6–7), ing and Sales: Optimization of a Neglected Relationship,” 482–492. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21 (6), 338–345. Homburg, Christian, and Ove Jensen (2007), “The Thought McCracken, Grant (1988), The Long Interview, Newbury Park, Worlds of Marketing and Sales: Which Differences Make CA: Sage. a Difference?” Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 124–142. Menon, Ajay, Barnard J. Jaworski, and Ajay K. Kohli (1996), Homburg, Christian, and Christian Pflesser (2000), “A Multi- “Product Quality: Impact of Interdepartmental Interac- ple-Layer Model of Market-Oriented Organizational Cul- tions,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), ture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes,” 187–200. Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (4), 449–462. Montgomery, David, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. (1997), Homburg, Christian, Ove Jensen, and Harley Krohmer “Marketing’s Interfunctional Interfaces: The MSI Work- (2008), “Configurations of Marketing and Sales: A Taxon- shop of Management of Corporate Fault Zones,” Journal omy,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (March), 133–154. of Market Focused Management, 2 (1), 7–26. Hurley, Robert F. (1998), “Customer Service Behavior in Re- Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater (1990), “The Effect of a tail Settings: A Study of the Effect of Service Provider Market Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal of Personality,” Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 26 (2), Marketing, 54 (4), 20–35. 115–127. Naudé, Pete, Janine Desai, and John Murphy (2003), “Iden- Ingram, Thomas N. (2004), “Future Themes in Sales and tifying the Determinants of Internal Marketing Orienta- Sales Management: Complexity, Collaboration, and Ac- tion,” European Journal of Marketing, 37 (9), 1205–1220. countability,” Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 12 Noble, Charles H., and Michael P. Mokwa (1999), “Imple- (Fall), 18–28. menting Marketing Strategies: Developing and Testing Kirca, Ahmet H., Satish Jayachandran, and William O. a Managerial Theory,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 57–73. Bearden (2005), “Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Oliva, Ralph A. (2006), “The Three Key Linkages: Improving Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact the Connections Between Marketing and Sales,” Journal on Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24–41. of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21 (6), 395–398. Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), “Market Ori- Olson, Eric M., Stanley F. Slater, and G. Tomas M. Hult entation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and (2005a), “The Importance of Structure and Process to Managerial Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), Strategy Implementation,” Business Horizons, 48 (1), 1–18. 47–54. Kotler, Philip, Neil Rackham, and Suj Krishnaswamy (2006), Olson, Eric M., Stanley F. Slater, and G. Tomas M. Hult “Ending the War Between Sales and Marketing,” Harvard (2005b), “The Performance Implications of Fit Among Business Review, 84 (718), 68–78. Business Strategy, Marketing Organization Structure, LeMeuneir-FitzHugh, Ken, and Nigel Piercy (2007), “Does and Strategic Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), Collaboration Between Sales and Marketing Affect Busi- 49–65. ness Performance?” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Panigyrakis, George C., and Cleopatra A. Veloutsou (1999), Management, 27, 3 (Summer), 207–220. “Brand Managers’ Interfaces in Different Consumer Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon E. Guba (1985), Naturalistic In- Goods Industries,” Journal of Product and Brand Manage- quiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. ment, 8 (1), 19–37. Lings, Ian N. (2004), “Internal Market Orientation: Construct Piercy, Nigel F. (2006), “The Strategic Sales Organization,” and Consequences,” Journal of Business Research, 57 (4), Marketing Review, 6 (Spring), 3–28. 405–413. Piercy, Nigel F., and Nikala Lane (2003), “Transformation of Lings, Ian N., and Gordon E. Greenley (2005), “Measuring the Traditional Salesforce: Imperatives for Intelligence, Internal Market Orientation,” Journal of Service Research, Interface and Integration,” Journal of Marketing Manage- 7 (2), 290–305. ment, 19 (7), 563–582. Lorge, Sarah (1999), “Marketers Are From Mars, Salespeople Piercy, Nigel F., and Neil Morgan (1995), “Internal Market- Are From Venus,” Sales and Marketing Management, 151 ing—The Missing Half of the Marketing Programme,” (4), 26–33. Long Range Planning, 24 (2), 82–93. Maltz, Elliot, and Ajay K. Kohli (1996), “Market Intelligence Rackham, Neil, and John DeVincentis (1999), Rethinking the Dissemination Across Functional Boundaries,” Journal of Sales Force: Redefining Selling to Create and Capture Cus- Marketing Research, 33 (2), 47–61. tomer Value, New York: McGraw-Hill. Massey, Graham R., and Philip L. Dawes (2007), “Personal Rafiq, Mohammed, and Pervaiz K. Ahmed (1993), “The Characteristics, Trust, Conflict, and Effectiveness in Mar- Scope of Internal Marketing: Defining the Boundary Be- keting/ Sales Working Relationships,” European Journal of tween Marketing and Human Resource Management,” Marketing, 41 (9–10), 1117–1145. Journal of Marketing Management, 9 (7), 219–232. S a l e s B u y -I n o f M a r k e t i n g S t r a t e g i e s 225

Rafiq, Mohammed, and Pervaiz K. Ahmed (2000),- “Ad Strahle, William M., Rosann L. Spiro, and Frank Acito (1996), vances in the Internal Marketing Concept: Definition, “Marketing and Sales: Strategic Alignment and Func- Synthesis and Extension,” Journal of Services Marketing, 14 tional Implementation,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales (617), 449–462. Management, 16, 1 (Winter), 1–20. Reynoso, Javier F., and Brian Moores (1996), “Internal Rela- Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Quali- tionships,” in Relationship Marketing: Theory and Practice, tative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing F. Buttle, ed., London: Paul Chapman, pp. 55–73. Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rouziès, Dominique, Erin Anderson, Ajay K. Kohli, Ron- Tansuhaj, Patriya, Donna Randall, and Jim McCullough ald E. Michaels, Barton A. Weitz, and Andris A. Zoltners (1988), “A Services Marketing Management Model: Inte- (2005), “Sales and Marketing Integration: A Proposed grating Internal and External Marketing Functions,” Jour- Framework,” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Manage- nal of Services Marketing, 2 (1), 31–38. ment, 25, 2 (Spring), 113–122. Thompson, Craig J., Aric Rindfleisch, and Zeynep Arsel Ruekert, Robert W., and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1987), “Mar- (2006), “Emotional Branding and the Strategic Value of keting’s Interaction with Other Functional Units: A Con- the Doppelganger Brand Image,” Journal of Marketing, 70 ceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence,” Journal of (1), 50–64. Marketing, 51 (1), 1–19. Tuli, Kapil R., Ajay K. Kohli, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj Rust, Roland T., and Bruce Cooil (1994), “Reliability Mea- (2007), “Rethinking Customer Solutions: From Product sures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Bundles to Relational Processes,” Journal of Marketing, 71 Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1), 1–14. (7), 1–17. Sasser, W. Earl, and Stephen P. Arbeit (1976), “Selling Jobs in Varadarajan, P. Rajan, Satish Jayachandran, and J. Chris the Service Sector,” Business Horizons, 19 (6), 61–65. White (2001), “Strategic Interdependence in Organiza- Silverman, David, and Aamir Marvasti (2008), Doing Qualita- tions: Deconglomeration and Marketing Strategy,” Jour- tive Research: A Comprehensive Guide, Thousand Oaks, CA: nal of Marketing, 65 (1), 15–28. Sage. Wasmer, D.J., and Gordon C. Brunner, II (1991), “Using Or- Singh, Jagdip (1998), “Striking a Balance in Boundary-Span- ganizational Culture to Design Internal Marketing Strate- ning Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional gies,” Journal of Services Marketing, 5 (1), 35–46. Influences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Workman, John P., Jr., Christian Homburg, and Kjell Gruner Job Outcomes of Salespeople,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (7), (1998), “Marketing Organization: An Integrative Frame- 69–86. work of Dimensions and Determinants,” Journal of Mar- Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam keting, 62 (7), 21–41. Fahey (1999), “Marketing, Business Processes, and Share- Yandle, Jo, and Jim Blythe (2000), “Intra-Departmental Con- holder Value: An Organizationally Embedded View of flict Between Sales and Marketing: An Exploratory Marketing Activities and the Discipline of Marketing,” Study,” Journal of Selling and Major Account Management, Journal of Marketing, 63 (4), 168–179. 2 (3), 3–31.

Appendix

Interview Questions Why is getting a buy-in from the sales force of a marketing strategy important? What are the benefits of getting buy-in from the sales force? Why do some companies succeed in getting a buy-in? Why do some firms not succeed in this endeavor? What does getting a buy-in from the sales force entail? What happens if marketing fails to get a buy-in from sales? Are there any other factors that may determine whether sales embraces the marketing initiatives?