ARTICLE IN PRESS Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs? Abdullah Promise Opute a,*, Nnamdi O. Madichie b a b GPROM Academic and Management Solutions, Rotheweg 3, 33154 Salzkotten, Germany London School of Business and Management, London, UK A R T I C L E I N F O Article history: Received 9 November 2015 Revised 18 May 2016 Accepted 16 June 2016 Available online Keywords: Accounting–marketing integration Business performance Cross-functional bridge Strategic marketing management Task-connectivity integration Financial services organisations A B S T R A C T While an increasing body of literature progressively proposes that accounting–marketing integration would yield strategic marketing synergies, another stream of literature suggests ineffective accounting– marketing integration. This paper aims to bridge the dyadic research gap in the optimal business performance arising from the integration of accounting and marketing functions. Based on a survey of 162 responses (with 75 dyads) from accounting and marketing managers in UK financial services organisations, this study identifies departmental differences and boundary fencing as core relational features in this dyad. Despite the perceptual divergences in the accounting–marketing dyad, most respondents perceived an integration of these functions to be an effective tool in their respective organisations. This study illuminates the existence and influence of cultural diversity and boundary fencing behaviour in the accounting–marketing dyad with respect to impasse, accounting–marketing integration and performance. This study explains performance driven task connectivity integration between accounting and marketing. © 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction While numerous studies have explored the working relationship between the marketing function and other functional areas, ranging from marketing integration with R&D (e.g., Garrett et al., 2006; Moenaert et al., 1994; Song and Thieme, 2006) to marketing and sales integration (e.g., Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Lane, 2009; Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy, 2007), the relationship between marketing and accounting has received very little empirical attention (e.g., Barker, 2008; Ratnatunga et al., 1989). This is surprising given the increasing advocacy for the illumination of accounting– marketing working relationship/interface considering the critical importance to strategic orientation (Roslender and Hart, 2003) and value enhancement in organisations (e.g., Barker, 2008; Hyman and Mathur, 2005; Roslender and Hart, 2002, 2003). Bearing in mind the interplay of costs and benefits, areas that are within the domains of accounting and marketing respectively, there is an obvious need for integration between both functions. The body of literature on accounting–marketing integration suggests opposing views in terms of outcome – while some studies have observed strategic marketing synergies (e.g., Downie, 1997; Gleaves et al., 2008; Roslender and Hart, 2003; Roslender and Wilson, 2008), * Corresponding author. Tel.: 0049-17631273564. E-mail address: promise.opute@gpromsolutions.org (A.P. Opute). others1 report that accounting–marketing integration has been ineffective. For example, Field and Gabhart (1981) (cited in Barker, 2008) lamented that accounting and marketing are non-integrated as ‘cats and dogs’, a view that is supported by arguments that accounting and marketing remain apart (Downie, 1997; Gleaves et al., 2008; Zinkhan and Verbrugge, 2000a, 2000b). These notions require empirical validation. Over three decades after Field and Gabhart’s comment, there is increasing call for ways to enhance accounting–marketing working relationship (e.g., Barker, 2008; Gleaves et al., 2008). Reporting on the matter, Wilson (2000) argued that accounting’s failure to work well with marketing leads to misdirection of marketing efforts. Reportedly, this failure to work harmoniously and misdirection of marketing impact are the consequences of attitudinal issues driven impasse in the accounting–marketing interface. As repositories of knowledge in their functional domains, it is important for accounting and marketing to work effectively together and enhance organisational performance; therefore, further exploration of this dyad is necessary (Gleaves et al., 2008; Hyman and Mathur, 2005; Roslender and Wilson, 2008). 1 See the special issue on the marketing/accounting interface vol. 24, issue 7/8. Indeed Gleaves et al. (2008) opined that “Marketing and Management Accounting (MA) have traditionally been seen as poles apart in terms of both focus and approach.” See also the IJEIM Special Issue on Realigning the Innovation-Entrepreneurship Interface guest edited by Madichie (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 2 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Table 1 The typical problems in the accounting/marketing interface. Nature of problems Cognitive Attitudinal Definition of problems Sources 1. Accountants lack understanding of marketing principles and concepts. 2. Accountants lack understanding of marketing policies, problems, practices and ‘marketing concept’. 1. Inadequacy of accountants to identify and classify costs, and ineffective financial analysis of customers and distribution channels. Failure to understand information needs. 2. Inaccurate and untimely accounting reporting 3. Accountants do not accept marketing as a distinct and separate managerial function. 4. Accountants tend to over-emphasise cost control and are production-oriented. Organisational General assessment 5. Lack of minimum acceptable goal criteria 1. Inadequate informal communication between accountants and marketing decisions makers 2. Multiple reporting responsibilities of accounting, leading to priority assignment prejudicial to marketing 3. Information sharing problems 1. 2. 3. 4. A general ineffective integration between the accounting and marketing functions Failure of accounting to understand the Marketing function Failure of Accounting to measure up to the information requirement of Marketing There are serious integration issues between Accounting and Marketing. Accounting and marketing must integrate effectively to contribute to strategic marketing efforts (Gleaves et al., 2008; Roslender and Hart, 2003) – a precondition for profitable customer satisfaction (Gleaves et al., 2008). Services marketing literature (Xu et al., 2014) adds to this integration–performance logic: resource integration between customers and employees yields service co-creation. Inspired by highlighted research gaps, this study draws upon concepts from organisational behaviour, marketing and management to investigate the accounting–marketing working relationship in UK financial services organisations. Utilising interpersonal relationship insight (e.g., Opute, 2012, 2015) and affective reaction view of interpersonal relationship (e.g., Greer et al., 2008; Opute, 2015), this study focuses on the attitudinal behaviour perspective of accounting– marketing integration. Specifically, the study illuminates the nature of attitudinal factors (cultural and orientation differences, and role flexibility), their influence on accounting–marketing integration, and their interconnectedness. Integration relevance may be interface dependent (e.g., Griffin and Hauser, 1996), and since human beings are a bundle of emotions their ability to interact and work harmoniously hinges on their emotional capacity. We argue that the perspective proposed in this study is critical to optimising the benefits of the integration between accounting and marketing. This study makes two contributions to the knowledge about accounting–marketing integration. First, this study illuminates the nature and existence of attitudinal factors and combined influence on the integration between accounting and marketing. Second, this study contributes to the understanding of task-connectivity integration in the accounting–marketing interface. Within this latter context, this study explains the inter-connectedness between culture and orientation differences and role flexibility and integration influence, through a careful examination of routine and strategic marketing process integration. It must be pointed out that this study does not disaggregate accounting and finance but treats them interchangeably. While this might be a limitation, the central argument is not lost as the call for marketing–accounting/finance integration is the main thrust and especially expedient when it comes to marketing of financial services. 2. The accounting–marketing dyad Research suggests problems in the accounting–marketing relationship (e.g., Abdel-Kader and Luther, 2004; De Ruyter and Wetzels, 2000; Drury et al., 1993; Foster and Gupta, 1994; Wilson, 2000). Harrison (1979) Foster and Gupta (1994), Wilson (1999, 2000) Foster and Gupta (1994), Wilson (1999, 2000) Abdel-Kader and Luther (2004), Drury et al. (1993) Wilson (2000) Harrison (1979), Foster and Gupta (1994), Wilson (1999, 2000) Foster and Gupta (1994), Wilson (2000) Harrison (1979) Harrison (1979) Abdel-Kader and Luther (2004), Drury et al. (1993) Abdel-Kader and Luther (2004), Drury et al. (1993), Foster and Gupta (1994), Wilson (1981, 1999, 2000) Barker (2008) These problems reflect cognitive, attitudinal and organisational features that lead to what Krohmer et al. (2002) once described as a ‘detrimental disharmony’ (see Table 1) and ultimately resulting in negative organisational performance. Wilson (2000) elaborates that accounting neither understands nor meets (accurately and timely) the information needs of marketing, while Barker (2008, p. 325) notes that “marketers see more contradiction in the information they receive, which raises quality concerns.” Furthermore, the observed impasse in the accounting–marketing literature suggests cultural differences-driven features (e.g., Durden, 1988; Gleaves et al., 2008), a view that connects to mainstream literature about “Culture Thought Worlds” in inter-functional relationships (Griffin and Hauser, 1996, p. 196; Kotler et al., 2006; Maltz, 1997). As Snow (1993, p. 16) argues, such culture differences cause ‘a gulf of mutual incomprehension’ leading to disharmonious working between both parties. As further literature underlines, such culture differences culminate in tension and increased conflict potentials (Barker, 2008; Wilson, 2000) and hinder effective cross-functional relationship (De Ruyter and Wetzels, 2000; Maltz, 1997). Based on these facts, it seems right to agree that there is ineffective accounting–marketing integration, and this paper aims to enhance knowledge in this area. 3. Inter-departmental integration dimensions Integration essentially refers to the ‘strategic linking’ of functionally specialised groups for corporate success (Plakoyiannaki and Tzokas, 2002). To optimise the strategic linking, accounting and marketing must engage in effective symbiotic interrelating. Inspired by the view that organisations that adopt a comprehensive integration approach would increase their performance (e.g., Kahn and Mentzer, 1998; Krohmer et al., 2002), this paper invokes both information sharing (Barker, 2008; Xie et al., 2003) inter alia2 and team esprit de corps (Kahn and Mentzer, 1998; Parry and Song, 1993; Xie et al., 2003) theories to examine accounting–marketing integration. Specifically, this study conceptualises three integration dimensions, namely ‘information sharing’, ‘unified effort’ and ‘involvement’. 2 For more details on this please see Chimhanzi (2004), Kahn and Mentzer (1998), Kahn (1996), and Krohmer et al. (2002). Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ 3 3.1. Information sharing 4.1. Strategic marketing analysis (SMAS) Information sharing is a core interdepartmental integration aspect (Barker, 2008). Effective information sharing is essential for relationship success (Monczka et al., 1998; Xie et al., 2003). Utilising existing logic (Moenaert and Souder, 1990; Xie et al., 2003), information sharing captures the awareness of information needs and goals of each other, and effective, accurate and timely exchange of information between both departments. Strategic marketing analysis aims to answer the strategic question ‘Where are we now?’ (CIM Handbook of Strategic Marketing, 2003, p. 11; Hooley et al., 2004; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005, p. 41). Thus, it clearly identifies a firm’s current position and nature of marketing capability, a process that involves a thorough review of marketing effectiveness (op. cit.). Utilising existing literature (e.g., Fahy and Smithee, 1999; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005), strategic marketing analysis in this study sensitises environmental changes and effects, and organisation’s ability to cope with the demands of the environment. 3.2. Team esprit de corps Interfunctional research initiatives (Kahn and Mentzer, 1998; Kahn, 1990) stress that organisations emphasise the use of teamoriented approaches in their drive for better allocation of marketing effort (Piercy, 1986). Kahn (1996) lends support to this logic: esprit de corps has greater impact on performance. Stressing the importance of this perspective, Boyt et al. (2005, p. 689) state that “esprit de corps, which consists of a set of enthusiastically shared feelings, beliefs, and values about group membership and performance, may manifest itself as a strong desire to achieve a common goal even in the face of hostility.” Given the evidence of hostilities in the accounting–marketing dyad, goal incongruity is very likely. In the light of the above, the esprit de corps logic of taps from Boyt et al. (2005) is adopted here. Indeed the esprit de corps focus is important because workgroup members usually differ in background, training and job assignments (Boyt et al., 2005; Snow, 1993). This study defines ‘unified effort’ and ‘involvement’ as esprit de corps integration dimensions. These dimensions and ‘information sharing’ are core to achieving effective inter-functional co-ordination, which among others (Narver and Slater, 1990, p. 22) requires “an alignment so that each perceives the advantage in cooperating closely with other functions,” towards effective strategic marketing. Following empirical precedence on esprit de corps realm of integration (e.g., Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Lane, 2009; Parry and Song, 1993; Song and Thieme, 2006), the parameters for this study included mutual support, give and take attitude, openness to criticisms, swift resolving of conflicts, and few disagreements in the strategic marketing efforts for unified effort, and direct involvement across the stages of the strategic marketing process, open discussion of opposing views, cross-functional role performance, joint involvement in defining strategic marketing priorities, and joint involvement in responding to market changes for involvement dimensions of accounting–marketing integration. 4. Accounting–marketing integration and strategic marketing process Following Deshpande this study conceptualises Strategic Marketing Management as a process that: […] involves all marketing efforts geared towards fulfilling the tenets of customer orientations, i.e., knitting a suitable strategic marketing formula for profitably satisfying customers, and thereby enhancing overall organizational performance. To maximise strategic marketing (SM) effectiveness, and accounting–marketing integration benefits, it is important to have a full understanding of the core activities in the SM process. Therefore the SM-process conceptualisation in this study includes analysis, planning, implementation, and control stages (CIM Handbook of Strategic Marketing, 2003). This approach which heeds the advocacy for more research on strategic marketing management (e.g., Day, 1992; Reibstein et al., 2009; Varadarajan, 2010) will contribute to the understanding of the contingencies connected to the entire SM-process. 4.2. Strategic marketing planning stage (SMPS) In the literature of strategic planning, we are told that the process involves defining and determining a firm’s strategic initiatives (Dibrell et al., 2014; Jarzabkowski and Balogun, 2009). To design a realisable strategic marketing plan, organisations must ensure that the inspiration behind the plan is grounded on analysis evidence (CIM Handbook of Strategic Marketing, 2003; Varadarajan, 2010; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005). This study’s argument builds on the perspectives that strategic marketing planning must prioritise (i) the nature of marketing objective (Titus et al., 2011; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005), (ii) matching organisation’s activities to resource capacity (CIM Handbook of Strategic Marketing, 2003), and (iii) examination of relevant approaches (Wilson and Gilligan, 2005). 4.3. Strategic marketing implementation stage (SMIS) Once strategic plan is concluded, strategic implementation, which concerns translating a decision into action, follows, a logical action that presupposes that the decision itself was made, given feasibility and acceptability (Hooley et al., 2004; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005). Strategic marketing implementation in this study sensitised (1) actual execution of the plan and (2) allocation of resources to new courses of action. 4.4. Strategic marketing control and evaluation stage (SMCS) The control process involves (adaptive) actions directed towards achieving specified goals in the face of constraints (Jüttner et al., 2010; Wilson and Gilligan, 2005). Here, strategic marketing control is conceptualised as a process that enables the organisation to know from time to time where it stands vis-à-vis predetermined future strategic marketing targets (De Wit and Meyer, 2001), a view that taps from the control process perspective that progress be observed, measured and redirected, if there are discrepancies between actual and desired positions (Wilson and Gilligan, 2005, p. 725). Therefore, this study reflects evaluation of performance and identification of discrepancies towards effective readjustments. Given conceptualised integration lens, three integration dimensions are gauged at all strategic marketing stages. The measurement instruments for all variables are explained under methodology. 5. The framework for the study This paper is a part of a study which included 10 antecedent variables. Substantial insights exist about the antecedents of marketing’s integration with other functional areas (e.g., Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy, 2007; Song and Thieme, 2006; inter alia). Grounded on evaluated evidence of problems in the accounting–marketing dyad, this paper examines the attitudinal attributes that typify this interface. Functional departments are primarily ‘schools’ for training functional expertise (Womack and Jones, 1994, cited in Stephens and Archambault, 1998), and functional traits condition the extent of interfunctional relationships harmony (Gleaves et al., 2008; Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 4 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Fig. 1. Framework for the study. Snow, 1993). To illuminate task connectivity in this interface, we prioritise this attitudinal perspective in this paper combining interface impasse (e.g., Abdel-Kader and Luther, 2004; Drury et al., 1993; Kotler et al., 2006) and affective behaviour (e.g., Greer et al., 2008; Medina et al., 2005; Opute, 2012) theories and association to performance (Boyt et al., 2005; Kahn, 1996). The attitudinal premise in this study reflects cultural diversity (culture, orientation and perception) and role flexibility, and connected tension implications. Since interfunctional integration efficacy is activity contingent (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Moenaert et al., 1994), this study examines routine and strategic marketing process integration. Fig. 1 conceptualises two dependent variables (routine and strategic marketing process). This assessment approach will allow for a more scientific explication of attitudinal based features in the accounting–marketing integration, a perspective that will provide important insights concerning conceptual literature about accounting–marketing integration (e.g., impasse, drivers, and strategic marketing relevance). Specifically, this research design will help identify the existence, tension implications, and consequences on achieved accounting–marketing integration of ‘cultural diversity’ (Nishii and Ozbilgin, 2007) and role flexibility (Moenaert et al., 1994) or the contrary, and control mechanisms adopted. For the achieved integration consequence target, the hypotheses are defined next. Interfunctional relationship literature has long underlined that different professions have different cultures (e.g., Gupta et al., 1986; Parry and Song, 1993). This foundation is supported by accounting– marketing interface literature which pinpoints cultural diversity as a core feature of the accounting–marketing interface (e.g., Drury et al., 1993; Wilson, 2000). Essentially, integration is the ‘symbiotic interrelation’ (Souder and Chakrabarti, 1978) and ‘strategic linking of functionally specialised groups’ (Plakoyiannaki and Tzokas, 2002). The degree of symbiotic interrelation and strategic linking outcome will hinge largely on the cultures that separate the integrating departments, after all culture shapes the psychological mindset of individuals (e.g., Hofstede, 1980; Opute, 2015; Shteynberg et al., 2009). Three core cultural differences (culture, perception, and orientation) have been found to influence interfunctional integration. Extending the psychological foundation we invoke affective behaviour viewpoint (e.g., Greer et al., 2008) and argue that when departments are characterised by such cultural differences, ineffective integration is unavoidable, as participants are very likely to display negative emotions. Borrowing marketing–R&D integration insight (e.g., Gupta, 1984; Parry and Song, 1993) which underlines cultural diversity as barrier to integration, this study proposes that: H1a. The more the cultural diversity between accounting and marketing, the less the achieved (routine) integration H1b. The more the cultural diversity between accounting and marketing, the less the achieved integration at the strategic marketing process stages Building on social capital theory, interfunctional relationship scholars suggest that role flexibility – the movement of personnel beyond their functional domain (Xie et al., 2003) – would enable integrating partners gain cross-functional knowledge (Jaspers and Van den Ende, 2006) for understanding why decisions are made (Garrett et al., 2006; Griffin and Hauser, 1996). Supporting that foundation, empirical insights underline an association between role flexibility and R&D–marketing integration (e.g., Leenders and Wierenga, 2002; Moenaert et al., 1994; Parry and Song, 1993). There is a need to illuminate the association between role flexibility and accounting–marketing integration, a need that is even more pertinent, given the increasing conceptual notion of cultural diversity existence in this dyad, and likely interconnection to cross boundary role performance attitude. We note that, especially in dyads where perception differences and stereotypes exist, such cross-functional knowledge is essential and would enable integrating partners to view things objectively and work harmoniously rather Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 5 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Table 2 Reliability and validity statistics for factors. α DINTTOT DINV DMIS DUE AI@SMAS AI@SMPS AI@SMIS AI@SMCS COD ROFLEX* .71 .90 .93 .87 .91 .93 .89 .94 .89 .81 Mean 3.71 4.05 4.06 3.87 3.82 3.53 3.87 4.04 2.31 Std. Dev. 0.94 0.92 0.88 0.87 0.94 0.88 0.89 0.96 0.96 Baseline comparisons stats GFI stats. SRMR stats NFI IFI CFI GFI SRMR .92 .97 .98 .99 .86 .91 .81 .88 .96 .95 .95 .97 .98 1.00 .87 .93 .82 .89 .96 .96 .95 .97 .98 1.00 .87 .93 .82 .89 .96 .96 .88 .96 .96 .99 .82 .87 .80 .81 .95 .95 .05 .02 .02 .01 .06 .04 .07 .05 .04 .06 * Item 3 of this construct loaded at .370, but was retained on scientific justification. that investing their time and energy on perception and stereotype induced substantive disagreements. We therefore follow Moenaert and Souder (1990) and propose that: H2a. The more the role flexibility between accounting and marketing, the more the achieved (routine) integration. H2b. The more the role flexibility between accounting and marketing, the more the achieved integration at the strategic marketing process stages. 6. Methodology The instrument for this study, which included measures adapted from previous studies (see Appendix), was tested on UK Financial Services Organizations (FSOs) sampled from the FAME Database. According to Bush (2012), to identify problems in the questionnaire design, 5 to 10 representative respondents are sufficient. In this present study, the instrument was pilot-tested with 12 key informants (accounting and marketing managers) to evaluate clarity, bias and unambiguous questions, and the questionnaire was subsequently revised to reflect the participants’ comments. The finalised questionnaire was mailed to both Accounting and Marketing heads of 320 randomly sampled from the sampling frame of 1000 UK FSOs. All companies had at least 100 employees (Kahn, 2001). The FSO industry is chosen because (1) it is a major contributor to the UK economy, and (2) as flagged by Howcroft and Durkin in the Editorial of the Journal of Marketing Management (2003, p. 913), “financial service providers need to adopt a more marketing oriented approach to the challenges they face.” After about 8 months of data collection, involving 3 stages of sending reminder letters, 175 responses were received. After missing data examination 162 responses [84 – Marketing, 78 – Accounting), reflecting 75 dyads, were eligible for further analyses. At 27.34%, the response rate meets the standard in past studies (e.g., Barker, 2008; Kahn, 2001; Krohmer et al., 2002). The t-tests for differences in respondent and nonrespondent means as well as early and late respondents were not significant at the 10% level of confidence. Since departmental statistics reflected parsimony, pooled sample evidence was deemed legitimate for drawing conclusions in this paper. 7. Data analysis Based upon the reliability and validity prescription Hair et al. (2003), the analysis captured nine factors: Degree of Information Sharing (DMIS), Degree of Unified Effort (DUE), Degree of Involvement (DINV), Achieved Integration at the Strategic Marketing Analysis Stage (AI@SMAS), Achieved Integration at the Strategic Marketing Planning Stage (AI@SMPS), Achieved Integration at the Strategic Marketing Implementation Stage (AI@SMIS), Achieved Integration at the Strategic Marketing Control Stage (AI@SMCS), Culture and Orientation Differences (COD), and Role Flexibility (ROFLEX). Also, there was a higher order factor: Degree of Total Integration (DINTTOT). Table 2 shows satisfactory factor means and Cronbach’s alpha values that satisfy the .7 benchmark (Nunnally, 1978). This study’s structural equation modelling process involved two steps (Kline, 1998): validating the measurement model and fitting the structural model. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses were used for the former and path analyses for the latter. The exploratory and confirmatory factor results are satisfactory. All but one factor loadings satisfied the benchmark (≥.4) (Cappelleri et al., 2000), suggesting close association between variables for each factor, evidence supported by uni-dimensionality statistics (Table 2). The variable loading at .370 (Cappelleri et al., 2000) was however retained, given scientific legitimacy. Goodness of fit estimates for all factors are satisfactory. Following conceptualisation, integration was examined as a higher-order construct. The reliability and goodness-of-fit statistics are satisfactory (see DINTTOT in Table 2), and are supported by the lower-order construct evidence of integration dimensions (DINV, DMIS and DUE). Goodness of fit legitimacy was concluded for the four strategic marketing factors (Table 2) on approximate fit evidence, a conclusion, which, given below 200 sample size of 162 (Kline, 1998) and six parameters for each factor, is scientifically justified. The convergent and discriminant results are satisfactory (Garver and Mentzer, 1999). For the strategic marketing factors, discriminant validity was neither achieved nor a priority, given that the four factors do not measure unique constructs, i.e., not contextually distinct factors, rather capture same combination of integration dimensions at various stages of the strategic marketing process. Expectedly thus, a considerable amount of shared variance was pertinent, thus evidencing the presence of ‘weak form’ of discriminant validity (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994). Although the path analyses results suggested approximate fit for all four models, overall fit conclusion is justified because of: (i) the sample limitation; (ii) sample discrepancy, and slight divergence in data (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996) trigger badness-of-fit; (iii) sample size is critical to achieving model fits (Jaccard and Wan, 1996, pp. 70–74), as SEM relies on tests which are sensitive to sample size; and (iv) with over ten variables (Kline, 1998, p. 12), as in this study, sample size under 200 generally means parameters are unstable and lead to weak significance power. Having confirmed reliability and validity of factors, hypotheses testing was undertaken through multivariable regression analyses (Fig. 2). MANOVA suitability was checked through a combination of tests: influence diagnostics were checked by examining the coefficient estimates for outliers (Cook, 1979; Parry and Song, 1993), while collinearity diagnostics gauged linearity between predictors. Statistical estimates for all independent variables (including all other independent variables in the main study – see Opute, 2009; Opute et al., 2013) indicate that multicollinearity is not a threat, given (1) ball park Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 6 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Std. β. t-value (Sig.) -.04 -.92 (.35) .06 .81 (.42) -.12 -1.60 (.11) -.03 -.47 (.64) Std. β. DINTTOT R² = .712 Adj. R² = .691 Reg. F-Value = 33.73 (.000) DMIS R² = .314 Adj. R² = .264 Reg. F-Value = 6.250 (.000) DUE R² = .344 Adj. R² = .295 Reg. F-Value = 7.139 (.000) DINV R² = .486 Adj. R² = .448 Reg. F-Value = 12.877 (.000) t-value (Sig.) -.12 -2.25 (.026) -.01 -.07 (.95) -.17 -2.05 (.042) -.06 -.81 (.42) Routine Integration COD ROFLEX FM = 4.04 Std. Dev. = 0.96 α = .89 NFI = .96 IFI = .96 CFI = .96 GFI = .95 SRMR = .04 FM = 2.31 Std. Dev. = 0.96 α = .81 NFI = .95 IFI = .96 CFI = .96 GFI = .95 SRMR = .06 Strategic Marketing Integration .21 4.00 (.00) .15 2.63 (.01) AI@SMAS R² = .653 Adj. R² = .627 Reg. F-Value = 25.651 (.000) -.17 -2.82 (.01) -.20 -3.27 (.00) AI@SMPS R² = .623 Adj. R² = .595 Reg. F-Value = 22.521 (.000) .16 2.89 (.00) AI@SMIS R² = .623 Adj. R² = .596 Reg. F-Value = 22.554 (.000) -.10 -1.66 (.09) .19 3.40 (.00) AI@SMCS R² = .583 Adj. R² = .553 Reg. F-Value = 19.095 (.000) -.15 -2.29 (.02) Regression collinearity statistics (Tolerance and VIF): COD (.648 and 1.542) and ROFLEX (.823 and 1.215). Fig. 2. The influence of culture and orientation differences and role flexibility on routine and strategic marketing integration (N = 162). evidence (Field, 2005, pp. 175, 185); (2) sensitivity analysis evidence – the condition index for all independent variables was less than 15 (Belsley et al., 1980); (3) no predictor had a VIF value close to 10 (Myers, 1990); and (4) the tolerance statistics (i.e., the reciprocal – 1/VIF) measure above 0.2 (Menard, 2000). 8. Discussion of findings This study suggests effective accounting–marketing integration. The descriptive integration results are highlighted in Table 3 (routine integration) and Table 4 (strategic marketing process integration) respectively. Majority of respondents perceive integration in their organisations to be effective: 71.6% (for achieved Degree of Information Sharing), 73.6% (for Achieved Degree of Unified Effort), 56.5% (for Degree of Involvement), and 67.2% (for Achieved Total Integration). Table 4 displays the strategic marketing process integration statistics. Secondly, there are cultural and perception diversities (Table 5) and ‘keep to your territory’ behaviour (Table 6) in the accounting– marketing dyad. These interface features provoke departmental tension between accounting and marketing. From empirical evidence Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 7 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ to illuminate integration and yet unidentified features of the dyad. Examining the contingents of the strategic marketing process integration in tandem with the second integration model enabled a better understanding of the attitudinal trends in the accounting– marketing integration. First, it illuminated the implications of ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘boundary fencing’ on integration in the explored context. Secondly, the study flagged differentials that underline task connectivity pertinence in interfunctional integration. Empirically, cultural diversity is strong (Table 5), negatively influences integration (routine and strategic marketing process) (Fig. 2) and fuels antagonism (interview evidence) that manifests in antiboundary spanning behaviour (Table 6) in the accounting–marketing interface. As a result, only task connectivity role flexibility is practised. Statistically (Fig. 2), while role flexibility positively associates with achieved strategic marketing process integration, the evidence for routine integration suggests a negative impact, although not significant in this study. Thirdly, and related to the task connectivity insight, the importance of the integration dimensions varies across the strategic marketing process (see Table 4). On average, over 50% respondents support the importance of each integration dimension for all stages (except for involvement in the Implementation stage) of the strategic marketing process. This evidence of involvement for the implementation stage further underlines the boundary spanning problems in this interface. All three integration dimensions seem to be critically important for the strategic marketing control stage, with the least dimension (Involvement) average being 65%. Critically important also is Information Sharing for all strategic marketing stages. Finally, Unified Effort integration seems very important for all strategic marketing stages, but to a lesser extent for the implementation stage. As indicated in the literature, conflict interferes with team performance (see for example, Table 3 Respondents’ perception of achieved dimensions of accounting–marketing integration (N = 162). Measures of integration* DMIS DUE DINV DINTTOT† % % % % Variable 1 Variable 2 Variable 3 Variable 4 Summation for Achieved Integration Dimension and Total Integration 79 75.9 68.6 63.5 71.6 77.7 72.2 63.6 80.8 73.6 57.4 69.8 40.1 58.7 56.5 71.4 72.6 57.4 67.7 67.2 * Measurement items are defined in the Appendix. Sample percentages are summations of ‘slightly agree’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ scores for each parameter. † DINTTOT = (DMIS + DUE + DINV)/3. (Fig. 2), H1a and H1b are largely supported: cultural differences negatively influence routine integration (unified effort and integration summation) and strategic marketing process integration (analysis, planning and control stages). Further evidence in Fig. 2 shows that H2a (routine integration – all dimensions and integration summation) is not supported, while H2b (strategic marketing process integration) is supported for all stages. A contrast and contribution to literature from this study is the insight that accounting and marketing integrate effectively despite strong dual conflict-driven tension in their working relationship. To explain integration evidence and enhance accounting–marketing dyad understanding of explored country and industry contexts, we (i) comparatively examined the two dependent variables evidence in relation to the two highlighted tension drivers in the dyad, and (ii) conducted interviews, using the two-stage interview protocol Table 4 Respondents’ perception of achieved dimensions of integration during the strategic marketing stages (N = 162). Strategic marketing integration* Strategic Marketing Unified Effort Strategic Marketing Unified Effort Strategic Marketing Info. Sharing Strategic Marketing Info. Sharing Strategic Marketing Involvement Strategic Marketing Involvement 1 2 1 2 1 2 Analysis stage Planning stage Implementation stage Control stage % % % % 70 72.2 65.4 77.8 50.6 56.1 59.9 76.7 81.7 60.5 59.1 52.5 76 30.2 74 67.9 50 43.2 67.9 72.3 67.9 67.3 61.7 68.3 * Measurement items are defined in the Appendix. Sample percentages are summations of ‘slightly agree’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ scores for each parameter. Table 5 Descriptive statistics: Culture differences between accounting and marketing (N = 162). Cultural differences between accounting and marketing: Measurement items Both departments do not understand each other Accounting and Marketing cultures differ Accounting and Marketing thinking patterns differ Views of organisational objectives differ V1 V2 V3 V4 Pooled sample %age Marketing sample %age Accounting sample %age 45.2 86.3 88.4 36.3 44.4 86.1 91.1 35.4 45.7 87.2 85.7 35.8 Sample percentages are summations of ‘slightly agree’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ scores for each parameter. Table 6 Descriptive statistics: Role flexibility between accounting and marketing (N = 162). Role flexibility between accounting and marketing: Measurement items A planned job rotation of accounting and marketing employees is emphasised as a device for developing their capabilities Accounting and Marketing functions do rotate employees Accounting gather and contribute strategic marketing information to the marketing team Some of the accounting members also performed technical marketing tasks in the strategic marketing process Pooled sample %age Marketing sample %age Accounting sample %age V1 91.3 91.5 91.4 V2 V3 90.1 63.3 92.7 60.9 87.6 63.8 V4 90.1 90.3 90.1 Note: Sample percentages are summations of ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘slightly disagree’ scores for each parameter. Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 8 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Carnevale and Probst, 1998). In the current study, despite their existence and tension implications, cultural diversity and boundary fencing between accounting and marketing do not seem to impede accounting–marketing integration in UK FSOs. To aid effective accounting–marketing integration, explored organisations use a cross-functional bridge mechanism. 9. Conclusions and implications This study contributes theory testing and theory building insights that enhance theory and managerial perspectives. The first contribution of this study is that it illuminates the existence (theory testing) and influence of cultural diversity and boundary fencing behaviour in this interface, evidence that extends prior literature on cultural differences existence (e.g., Ratnatunga et al., 1989; Wilson, 2000). The second contribution is an attempt to provide pioneering empirical insights of integration impact of cultural differences and role flexibility, and their inter-connecting conflict influence, which offers theory building knowledge. Furthermore, and in relation to the aforementioned integration and conflict association of cultural diversity and boundary fencing, this study pinpoints insights that enhance dyadic relationship perspective. This finding enhances literature (e.g., Barker, 2008; Downie, 1997) by highlighting factors that might account for ineffective accounting–marketing integration, and how to mitigate their effect. The third contribution of this study is that it enhances literature on the activity contingency of interfunctional integration, and underlines the need to pay attention to these attitudinal features in coordinating and integrating the functional resources, in order to effectively leverage the performance benefit of interfunctional integration. Thus, the study contributes that effective accounting–marketing integration can be achieved, despite cultural diversity (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Maltz, 1997) and boundary fencing (Kotler et al., 2006) and conflict impact. For that outcome, however, organisations must use a carefully deduced strategy to manage this dyadic relationship. In their study of sales–marketing collaboration in large UK organisations, based on three case studies and literature review, Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Piercy (2007, p. 951) observed that “even if sales and marketing staff are working closely together and have good informal communication, they may not be working collaboratively.” Existing literature also outlines two plausible reasons for this are different philosophies and different backgrounds (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Kotler et al., 2006), and different goals . The task-connectivity insight from the current study enhances these notions about sales– marketing integration, as well as contributes theory building evidence for the accounting–marketing literature. Role flexibility is not practised in UK financial services organisations outside the strategic marketing process. Although not significant in this study, Fig. 2 indicates a likelihood that blind enforcement of role flexibility might trigger negative consequences. This evidence (see Fig. 2 and Table 6) thus underlines task-connectivity boundary spanning in the accounting–marketing dyad, evidence that connects to the aforementioned sales–marketing perspectives. The regression coefficients are significant for all the strategic marketing process integration (Fig. 2). A close examination revealed that despite existent culture walls and boundary fencing attitude, organisational well-being orientation is prioritised, a finding that contrasts dysfunctional conflict perspective (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Krohmer et al., 2002). The fourth contribution and major highlight of this study relates to the Cross Functional Bridge (CFB) finding. This research outlines a cross-functional bridge tool that management can use to ensure effective and performance enhancing accounting–marketing integration, even when both functions might be culturally diverse and role flexibility averse. Especially in these attitudinal circumstances, the CFB lends itself as a suitable tool for strategically aligning their relationship and achieving best activity-driven integration (e.g., along the strategic marketing stages) and enhanced performance. As interview results showed, the introduction of the CFB was motivated by the need to find a suitable strategy for managing tension between accounting and marketing. Further interview evidence underscores the importance of the CFB, the central hub of their integration, in defining the strategic direction as well as for staff development and recruitment. The CFB interacts with the Board level and the accounting and marketing functional levels, feeding and transmitting across the tripartite levels. To drive business into the organisation, the CFB, liaises, transmits, connects and coordinates accounting–marketing working relationship to achieve unity of purpose. Finally, interview based insights from this study contribute to knowledge about interfunctional conflict management. To effectively manage attitudinal-induced tensions in this dyad, the CFB is used to achieve team psychological enhancement. This team psychological enhancement insight enhances psychological wellbeing perspectives of conflict management literature (e.g., Greer et al., 2008; Pluut and Curseu, 2012). By prioritising this team outcome, the CFB galvanises a ‘lay down your swords’ (Kotler et al., 2006, p. 3) attitude, sustained by a careful CFB strategy that drives for a common ground between both departments, i.e., prompts accounting and marketing to understand the interpretation and explanation of metrics critical to achieving organisational goals. For the interfunctional relationship context, the team psychological enhancement and CFB as a conflict management tool insights provide theory building directions, regarding for example conflict management strategies and how to achieve fit between management strategies and conflict types. If the CFB tool leverages the benefits of back and forth gathering and dissemination of information between these two departments, this will promote their integration, evidence that lends support to recent sales–marketing interface research (Le Meunier-FitzHugh and Lane, 2009). Transmitting messages back and forth between the Board and functional levels, the CFB also ensures strategic marketing goal congruity. Furthermore, tapping on the knowledge gained about the conflict factors, the CFB makes recommendations concerning training and development of staff and recruitment of new staff. In order to enhance interpersonal compatibility, towards corporate performance, cultural diversity management, cross-boundary knowledge, and interpersonal understanding, amongst other issues, are sensitised in staff training and development, as well as in recruitment of new staff. This insight of CFB relevance to personnel training and recruitment extends literature on marketing–HR integration’s link to customer-focused marketing strategies (Gratton, 1994; Piercy, 1997). The interface of marketing with other functional areas is very important to managers (Krohmer et al., 2002). This study offers beneficial input to managers in the conceptualised geographical and industrial contexts. Managers must be conscious of and manage cultural differences between accounting and marketing. This study demonstrates that despite strong culture walls (Table 5) and non-boundary spanning culture (Table 6), effective interfunctional integration (see Tables 3 and 4) is achievable. Critical to this goal, however, is a CFB that combines knowledge background of integrating departments, understands their interrelational conflict and tension drivers, and exploits these in order to better manage such conflicts to the betterment of organisational performance. 10. Limitations and future research directions While the findings may offer some practical utility, contingent on a number of other relational attributes, the sample-context limitation must be taken into consideration, bearing in mind task Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 9 A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ connectivity integration implications (see Garrett et al., 2006; Moenaert et al., 1994 for a Singapore sample). Supporting the argument for multiple country context empirical investigations, Lindgreen (2001) not only agrees with existing logic (Coviello et al., 1998), but also notes that although there are similar trading patterns between countries differences also exist in the marketing philosophy and the way of conducting business (see also Barker, 2008). Cautious application of findings from this study is also advised given the existent country-context contingencies (e.g., Xie et al., 2003). Although the RR of 27.34% measures well with precedence in interfunctional integration studies (e.g., Barker, 2008; Kahn, 1996), cautious generalisation of the findings is advised, given survey sample of 162 responses. This sample is less than 200 (Kline, 1998) and may not have explained all variance in the population, a statistical fact that is also explained by the approximate fit results of some strategic marketing integration models (see Table 2). Although several sectors of the financial services industry were explored in this study, the sector differences are not underlined in the findings, due to sample size limitation. A further sample related limitation is that departmental based differentials have not been reported, although survey respondents included accounting and marketing heads. Since strong culture walls exist, and may drive boundary fencing between accounting and marketing, future research efforts that fill these gaps would contribute to the understanding of the attitudinal features and activity contingencies (including also other service domains and non-service industries) in the accounting– marketing relationship. The CFB utility flagged in this study contributes to theoretical foundations, but also points to research directions to enhance accounting–marketing integration development. Future research should aim to address the diverse research avenues (framework, country and industry contexts) that connect to this CFB Strategy. Indeed there is a need to validate the CFB finding (e.g., conflict management utility, team psychological well-being input, staff training and development link and overall performance) using a more robust methodological protocol. Culture is also of considerable importance in the consideration of inter-functional relationships of this nature (Griffin and Hauser, 1996; Xie et al., 2003) just as much as team work (Jackson, 1996; Jackson et al., 2003; Kanter and Corn, 1994). While there is strong cultural divide between accounting and marketing, as suggested in this study prior interfunctional integration literature (Barker, 2008; Xie et al., 2003) flags the possibility of country-driven differentials. Finally, given that a substantial body of literature has indicated an accounting–marketing impasse, future studies should continue to explore the possibilities of such integration from both the country and/or industry context. Appendix Scale INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Culture & Orientation Differences Role Flexibility Scale items Sources Adapted/Adopted from α Marketing people do not seem to understand accounting people. The marketing culture differs from that of accounting. Marketing thinking patterns differ from those of accounting. Marketing’s view of organisation’s objectives are different from those of accounting. A planned job rotation of Marketing and Accounting employees is emphasised as a device for developing their capabilities. Marketing and Accounting functions do rotate employees. Accounting gather and contribute strategic marketing information to the marketing team. Some of the Accounting members also performed technical marketing tasks in the strategic marketing process. Gupta (1984), Parry and Song (1993) .89 Song et al. (2000), Xie et al. (2003) .81 1. 2. 3. 4. Involvement of both in strategic marketing decisions Engaging in open discussion from both perspectives Joint involvement in analysing customer needs Joint involvement in defining the strategic marketing priorities .90 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. Give-and-take attitude Willingness to listen to criticisms from each other Swift resolving of conflicts Mutual support of each other Awareness of the information needs of each other Effective information exchange Accurate and timely exchange of information Awareness of each other’s goals Accounting and Marketing support each other mutually in the joint effort to ascertain the changes taking place in the trading environment and assessing how these changes affect the firm and it activities. Accounting and Marketing are willing to listen to criticisms from each other in the effort to analyse the strategic marketing issues. Accounting and Marketing exchange accurate and timely information in the effort to effectively ascertain the changes taking place in the trading environment and assess how these changes affect the firm and its activities. Accounting and Marketing information exchange practices reflect common strategic goals between the functions. Accounting and Marketing jointly participate in the entire process of ascertaining the changes taking place in the environment and assessing how these changes affect the firm and its activities. Accounting and Marketing are jointly involved in considering the resources available for responding to the identified changes. Gupta et al. (1985), Gupta and Wilemon (1988), Parry and Song (1993), Song and Noh (2006), Song et al. (2000), Xie et al. (2003); Dawes & Massey (2005) Leenders and Wierenga (2002), Parry and Song (1993), Song and Noh (2006), Song et al. (2000), Xie et al. (2003) Leenders and Wierenga (2002), Song et al. (2000), Xie et al. (2003) .93 Combination of sources as highlighted in the 3 dimensions of degree of achieved integration above. Empirical examination followed the precedence in Gupta (1984), Parry and Song (1993), and Song et al. (1997). .91 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. DEPENDENT VARIABLES (a) Degree of Achieved Integration: Degree of Involvement Degree of Unified Effort Degree of Information Sharing Achieved Integration at Strategic Marketing Analysis Stage 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. .87 (continued on next page) Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS 10 Appendix A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ (continued) Scale Achieved Integration at Strategic Marketing Planning Stage Achieved Integration at Strategic Marketing Implementation Stage Achieved Integration at Strategic Marketing Control Stage Scale items 1. Accounting and Marketing support each other mutually in establishing strategic marketing schedules. 2. Accounting and Marketing show united team spirit and openness to criticisms in their effort to set strategic marketing goals and priorities. 3. Accounting and Marketing willingly share information in their effort to generate strategic marketing ideas. 4. Accounting and Marketing share accurate and timely information to aid marketing mix planning. 5. Accounting and Marketing participate jointly in deciding on the strategic marketing goals and priorities. 6. Accounting and Marketing participate jointly in decisions concerning apportionment of resources to strategic marketing efforts. 1. Accounting and Marketing depict team spirit in the execution of the strategic marketing plans. 2. Accounting and Marketing are willing to perform cross-functional roles in ensuring effectiveness and efficiency of strategic marketing plans. 3. Accounting and Marketing are aware of the information needs of each other in the execution of strategic marketing plans. 4. Accounting and Marketing share accurate and timely information in the execution of strategic marketing plans. 5. Accounting and Marketing jointly identify the specific tasks to be performed and execute actual strategic marketing plans. 6. Accounting and Marketing are jointly involved in the allocation of resources to the courses of strategic marketing action. 1. Accounting and Marketing mutually support each other in the process of monitoring the transformation of strategic marketing plans. 2. Accounting and Marketing show unity in the process of analysing performance to identify deviations from plans and areas of variances. 3. Accounting and Marketing share accurate and timely information to aid monitoring of transformation of strategic marketing plans. 4. Accounting and Marketing share accurate and timely information and aid evaluation of performance and identification of variances. 5. Accounting and Marketing jointly participate in the monitoring of the transformation of strategic marketing plans. 6. Accounting and Marketing jointly participate in identifying and evaluating courses of action in the event of a variance or variances. References Abdel-Kader, M., Luther, R., 2004. An empirical investigation of the evolution of management accounting practices. Working paper, University of Essex, UK. Bagozzi, R., Heatherton, T., 1994. A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem. Struct. Equ. Modeling 1 (1), 35–67. Barker, T., 2008. Exploring the differences between accountants and marketers in terms of information sharing. Mark. Intell. Plan. 26 (3), 316–329. Baumgartner, H., Homburg, C., 1996. Applications of structural equation modelling in marketing and consumer research: a review. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13 (2), 139–161. Belsley, D.A., Kuh, E., Welch, R.E., 1980. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Boyt, T., Lusch, R., Mejza, M., 2005. Theoretical models of the antecedents and consequences of organizational, workgroup, and professional esprit de corps. Eur. Manag. J. 23 (6), 682–701. Bush, T., 2012. Authenticity in research: reliability, validity and triangulation. In: Morrison, M., Briggs, A., Coleman, M. (Eds.), Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management. Sage Publications Limited, London. (Chapter 6). Cappelleri, J., Kourides, I., Gerber, R., Gelfand, R., 2000. Development and factor analysis of a questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction with injected and inhaled insulin for type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Care 23 (12), 1799–1803. Carnevale, P., Probst, T., 1998. Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1300–1309. Chimhanzi, J., 2004. The impact of marketing/HR interactions on marketing strategy implementation. Eur. J. Mark. 38 (1/2), 73–98. CIM Handbook of Strategic Marketing, 2003. In: Egan, C., Thomas, M. (Eds.). Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Cook, R.D., 1979. Influential observations in linear regression. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (365), 169–174. Coviello, N.E., Ghauri, P.N., Martin, K.A., 1998. International competitiveness: empirical findings from SME service firms. J. Int. Mark. 6 (2), 8–27. Dawes, P.L., Massey, G.R., 2005. Antecedents of conflict in Marketing’s cross functional relationship with Sales. Eur. J. Mark. 39 (11/12), 1327–1344. Day, G.S., 1992. Marketing’s contribution to the strategy dialogue. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 20, 323–330. De Dreu, C., Weingart, L., 2003. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (4), 741– 749. Sources Adapted/Adopted from α Combination of sources as highlighted in the 3 dimensions of degree of achieved integration above. Empirical examination followed the precedence in Gupta (1984), Parry and Song (1993), Song (1991), and Song et al. (1998). .93 Combination of sources as highlighted in the 3 dimensions of degree of achieved integration above. Empirical examination followed the precedence in Gupta (1984), Parry and Song (1993), Song (1991), and Song et al. (1998). .89 Combination of sources as highlighted in the 3 dimensions of degree of achieved integration above. Empirical examination followed the precedence in Gupta (1984), Parry and Song (1993), Song (1991), and Song et al. (1998). .94 De Ruyter, K., Wetzels, M., 2000. The marketing-finance interface: a relational exchange perspective. J. Bus. Res. 50, 209–215. De Wit, B., Meyer, R., 2001. Strategy: Process, Content, Context: An International Perspective, second ed. Thomson Learning, UK. Dibrell, C., Craig, J., Neubaum, D., 2014. Linking the formal strategic planning process, planning flexibility, and innovativeness to firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 67, 2000–2007. Downie, N., 1997. The use of accounting information in hotel marketing decisions. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 16 (3), 305–312. Drury, C., Braund, S., Osborne, P., Tayles, M., 1993. A Survey of Management Accounting Practices in UK Manufacturing Companies. Chartered Association of Certified Accountants, London. Durden, C., 1988. Marketing accountant: the emerging resource person within the accounting profession. Discussion Paper No. 79, Massey University Department of Accountancy, Palmerston Nth. NZ. Fahy, J., Smithee, A., 1999. Strategic marketing and the resource based view of the firm. Acad. Mark. Sci. Rev. 1999 (10), 1–20. Available: <http://www.amsreview .org/articles/fahy10-1999.pdf>. Field, A., 2005. Discovering Statistics using SPSS, second ed. Sage Publications, London. Field, G., Gabhart, D., 1981. Cultural lag and homeostasis in accounting theory and practice. In: Wilson, R.M.S. (Ed.), Financial Dimensions of Marketing, vol. 1. Macmillan, New York, NY. Foster, G., Gupta, M., 1994. Marketing, cost management and management accounting. J. Manag. Account. Res. 6 (Fall), 43–77. Garrett, T., Buisson, D., Yap, C., 2006. National culture and R&D and marketing integration mechanisms in new product development: a cross-cultural study between Singapore and New Zealand. Ind. Mark. Manag. 35, 293–307. Garver, M., Mentzer, J., 1999. Logistics research methods: employing structural equation modelling to test for construct validity. J. Bus. Logist. 20 (1), 33–57. Gleaves, R., Burton, L., Kitshoff, J., Bates, K., Whittington, M., 2008. Accounting is from mars, marketing is from Venus: establishing common ground for the concept of customer profitability. J. Mark. Manag. 24 (7–8), 825–845. Gratton, L., 1994. Implementing strategic intent: human resource processes as a force for change. Bus. Strategy Rev. 5 (1), 47–66. Greer, L., Jehn, K., Mannix, E., 2008. Conflict transformation: a longitudinal investigation of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of conflict resolution. Small Group Res. 39 (3), 278– 302. Griffin, A., Hauser, J., 1996. Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of literature. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 13, 191–215. Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001 ARTICLE IN PRESS A.P. Opute, N.O. Madichie / Australasian Marketing Journal ■■ (2016) ■■–■■ Gupta, A., 1984. A study of R&D/marketing interface and innovation success in high-technology firms (Ph.D. thesis). Syracuse University, NY, USA. Gupta, A., Raj, S., Wilemon, D., 1986. A model for studying the R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process. J. Mark. 50, 7–17. Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P., Wilemon, D., 1985. The R&D-marketing interface in hightechnology firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 2 (1), 12–24. Gupta, A.K., Wilemon, D., 1988. The credibility-cooperation connection at the R&DMarketing interface. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 5 (1), 20–35. Hair, J.F., Bush, R.P., Ortinau, D.J., 2003. Marketing research: within a changing information environment. McGraw Hill/Irwin, New York (NY). Harrison, G., 1979. The accounting/marketing interface: a marketing perspective. Aust. Account. 49 (7), 469–476. Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills. Hooley, G., Saunders, J., Piercy, N., 2004. Marketing Strategy and Competitive Positioning, third ed. Pearson Education Limited. Howcroft, B., Durkin, M., 2003. Editorial: effective marketing management in financial services contexts. J. Mark. Manage. 19 (9–10), 911–914. Hyman, M., Mathur, I., 2005. Retrospective and prospective views on the marketing/ finance interface. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 33 (4), 390–400. Jaccard, J., Wan, C.K., 1996. LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 114). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Jackson, S.E. (1996). The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams. Handbook of work group psychology, 53–75. Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., Erhardt, N.L., 2003. Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J. Manage. 29 (6), 801–830. Jarzabkowski, P., Balogun, J., 2009. The practice and process of delivering integration through strategic planning. J. Manag. Stud. 46, 1255–1288. Jaspers, F., Van den Ende, J., 2006. The organizational form of vertical relationships: dimensions of integration. Ind. Mark. Manag. 35, 819–828. Jüttner, U., Christopher, M., Godsell, J., 2010. A strategic framework for integrating marketing and supply chain strategies. Int. J. Logistics Manage. 21 (1), 104–126. Kahn, B., Mentzer, J., 1998. Marketing’s integration with other departments. J. Bus. Res. 42, 53–62. Kahn, K., 1996. Interdepartmental integration: a definition with implications for product development performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 13, 137–151. Kahn, K., 2001. Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 18, 314–323. Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manage. J. 33 (4), 692–724. Kanter, R.M., Corn, R.I., 1994. Do Cultural Differences Make a Business Difference?: Contextual Factors Affecting Cross-cultural Relationship Success. J. Manage. Dev. 13 (2), 5–23. Kline, R., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guildford Press, New York. Kotler, P., Rackham, N., Krishnaswamy, S., 2006. Ending the war between sales and marketing. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84 (7/8), 1–13. Krohmer, H., Homburg, C., Workman, J., 2002. Should marketing be cross-functional? Conceptual development and international empirical evidence. J. Bus. Res. 55, 451–465. Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Lane, N., 2009. Collaboration between sales and marketing, market orientation and business performance in business-to-business organizations. J. Strateg. Mark. 17 (3), 291–306. Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Piercy, N., 2007. Exploring collaboration between sales and marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 41 (7/8), 939–955. Leenders, M., Wierenga, B., 2002. The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 19 (4), 305–317. Lindgreen, A., 2001. A framework for studying relationship marketing dyads. Qual. Mark. Res. 4 (2), 75–87. Madichie, N., 2010. Editorial. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manage. 11 (2), 137–139. Maltz, E., 1997. An enhanced framework for improving cooperation between marketing and other functions: the differential role of integrating mechanisms. J. Mark. Focus. Manag. 2, 83–98. Medina, F., Munduate, L., Durado, M.A., Martinez, I., Guerra, J., 2005. Types of intragroup conflict and affective reactions. J. Manag. Psychol. 20 (3/4), 219–230. Menard, S., 2000. Coefficients of determination for multiple logistic regression analysis. Am. Stat. 54 (1), 17–24. Moenaert, R., Souder, W.E., 1990. An analysis of the use of extra-functional information by R&D and Marketing personnel: a review and model. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 7, 213–229. Moenaert, R., Deschoolmeester, D., De Meyer, A., Souder, W., 1994. R&D-Marketing integration mechanisms, communication flows and innovation success. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 11, 31–45. Monczka, R., Petersen, K., Handfield, R., Ragatz, G., 1998. Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decis. Sci. 29 (3), 553–577. Myers, R.H., 1990. Classical and modern regression application, second ed. Duxbury press, CA. Narver, J., Slater, S., 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J. Mark. 54 (October), 20–35. Nishii, L., Ozbilgin, M., 2007. Global diversity management: towards a conceptual framework. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 18 (11), 1883–1894. 11 Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York. Opute, A.P. 2009. Empirical investigation of Accounting-Marketing integration in UK financial services organisations: Dimensions, antecedents and strategic marketing evidence. a PhD thesis submitted at the University of East Anglia, UK. Opute, A.P., 2012. Maximizing effectiveness in team sports: the personal audit tool. Team Perform. Manag. 18 (1/2), 78–101. Opute, A.P., 2015. Optimizing team and organizational performance in sports setting: a diversity management perspective. In: Advances in Sports Research. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, pp. 39–60. ISBN: 978-1-63483-760-6. Opute, A.P., Dedoussis, E., Tzokas, N., 2013. Building blocks of Accounting-Marketing integration in UK financial services organizations. J. Mark. Oper. Manage. Res. 1 (4), 323–336. Parry, E.M., Song, M.X., 1993. Determinants of R&D-marketing integration in high-tech Japanese firms. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 10, 4–22. Piercy, N., 1986. The role and function of the chief marketing executive and the marketing department: a study of medium-sized companies in the UK. J. Mark. Manage. 1 (3), 265–289. Piercy, N., 1997. Partnership between marketing and human resource management for implementation effectiveness in services marketing. In: Academy of Marketing Conference Proceedings. Manchester Metropolitan University, pp. 865–878. Plakoyiannaki, M.E., Tzokas, N., 2002. Customer relationship management: a capabilities portfolio perspective. J. Database Mark. 9 (3), 228–237. Pluut, H., Curseu, P.L., 2012. Perceptions of intra-group conflict: the effect of coping strategies on conflict transformation and escalation. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. doi:10.1177/1368430212453633. Ratnatunga, J., Pike, R., Hooley, G.J., 1989. The marketing-finance interface. Eur. J. Mark. 24 (1), 29–43. Reibstein, D., Day, G., Wind, J., 2009. Guest editorial: is marketing losing its way? J. Mark. 73, 1–3. Roslender, R., Hart, J., 2002. Integrating management accounting and marketing in the pursuit of competitive advantage: the case for strategic management accounting. Crit. Perspect. Account. 13, 255–277. Roslender, R., Hart, S., 2003. In search of strategic management accounting: theoretical and field study perspectives. Manag. Account. Res. 14 (3), 255–279. Roslender, R., Wilson, R., 2008. Editorial: the marketing/accounting interface. J. Mark. Manag. 24 (1–2), 661–668. Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M.J., Kim, K., 2009. Peering into the “magnum mysterium” of culture. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 40 (1), 46–69. Snow, C.P., 1993. The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Song, M., Noh, J., 2006. Best new product development and management practices in the Korean high-tech industry. Ind. Mark. Manage. 35 (3), 262–278. Song, X., Thieme, R., Xie, J., 1998. The impact of cross-functional joint involvement across product development stages: an exploratory study. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 15, 289–303. Song, X.M., 1991. An empirical investigation of the R&D/Marketing interface in Japanese high-technology firms. PhD Dissertation. Song, X.M., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., Schmidt, J.B., 1997. Antecedents and consequences of cross-functional cooperation: a comparison of R&D, Manufacturing and Marketing perspectives. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 14 (1), 35–47. Song, X.M., Thieme, R.J., 2006. A cross-national investigation of the R&D–marketing interface in the product innovation processes. Ind. Mark. Manag. 35, 308–322. Song, X.M., Xie, J., Dyer, B., 2000. Antecedents and consequences of marketing managers’ conflict handling behaviours. J. Mark. 64 (1), 50–66. Souder, W., Chakrabarti, A., 1978. The R&D/marketing interface: results from an empirical study of innovation project. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 25 (4), 88–93. Stephens, J., Archambault, J., 1998. Cross-functional integration of marketing and accounting: value chain analysis. Mid Am. J. Bus. 13 (1), 31–40. Titus, V., Govin, J., Slevin, D., 2011. Aligning strategic processes in pursuit of firm growth. J. Bus. Res. 64, 446–453. Varadarajan, R., 2010. Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain definition, fundamental issues and foundational premises. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 38, 119–140. Wilson, R., 1981. The financial dimensions of marketing. Manag. Account. (September), 52–53. Wilson, R., 2000. Some Thoughts on Marketing Controllership. Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough. Loughborough University Research Series Paper, 2000:4. Wilson, R., Gilligan, C., 2005. Strategic Marketing Management: Planning, Implementation and Control, third ed. Butterworth Heinemann, London. Wilson, R.M.S., 1999. Accounting for Marketing, First ed. International Thomson Business Press, London. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., 1994. From lean production to lean enterprise. Harv. Bus. Rev. 72 (2), 93–103. Xie, J., Song, M., Stringfellow, A., 2003. Antecedents and consequences of goal incongruity on new product development in five countries: a marketing view. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 20, 233–250. Xu, Y., Tronvoll, B., Edvardsson, B., 2014. Recovering service failure through resource integration. Serv. Ind. J. 34 (16), 1253–1271. Zinkhan, G., Verbrugge, J., 2000a. The marketing/finance interface: two divergent and complimentary views of the firm. J. Bus. Res. 50, 143–148. Zinkhan, G., Verbrugge, J., 2000b. Special issue on the marketing/finance interface. J. Bus. Res. 50, 139–142. Please cite this article in press as: Abdullah Promise Opute, Nnamdi O. Madichie, An interrogation of accounting–marketing interface in UK financial services organisations: Mixing cats with dogs?, Australasian Marketing Journal (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.06.001