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