The blame game: An attribution theory approach to marketer–engineer conflict in high-technology companies

Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

The blame game: An attribution theory approach to marketer–engineer conflict in high-technology companies Susan M. Keaveney ⁎ University of Colorado Denver, The Business School, P.O. Box 173364, Campus Box 165, Denver CO 80217-3364, United States

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 1 April 2007 Accepted 8 April 2008 Available online 17 June 2008

A B S T R A C T Marketer–engineer conflict is a pervasive and as-yet unresolved problem of critical importance to hightechnology companies. This study updates and extends marketing literature by applying qualitative research methods including the critical incident technique to examine the causes of conflict between marketers and engineers in high-technology companies. Narratives from both marketers and engineers are interpreted from an attribution theory perspective as well as in the context of recent management research on interfunctional conflict. Results draw attention to a high proportion of personal attributions, indicating high levels of relationship-conflict; these results are in contrast to the task-conflict typically addressed by the marketing literature. Discussion highlights the changes in high-technology organizational culture since first by described by Workman 15 years ago [Workman, J. (1993). Marketing's limited role in new product development in one computer systems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (4), 405–421.], and recommendations for managers are offered. © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Marketer–engineer conflict is a well-known yet stubbornly difficult question facing high-technology companies. When high-tech firms introduce breakthrough innovations, marketers must work closely with R&D-engineers to identify commercial applications, define target market opportunities, finalize product features, and prioritize market development strategies; when high-tech firms introduce incremental innovations, R&D-engineers must coordinate with marketers to understand customer requirements, explain technical product features, and implement product launch (Mohr, Sengupta, & Slater, 2005). Conflict between the two groups is known to hinder new product development and success (Gupta, Raj, & Wilemon,1986; Song & Thieme, 2006), reduce the effectiveness of working relationships (Ruekert & Walker,1987), lead to lower product quality (Menon, Jaworski, & Kohli, 1997), and contribute to business failures (Fisher, Maltz, & Jaworksi, 1997). Resolving marketer–engineer conflict is crucial for firms that compete in markets characterized by high perceived environmental uncertainty (Gupta et al., 1986; Song & Thieme, 2006), high complexity and turbulence (Ruekert, Walker, & Roering, 1985), and rapid product innovativeness (Olson, Walker, & Ruekert 1995)—notably, all characteristics of high-technology markets (Mohr et al., 2005). Unfortunately, indications are that interfunctional conflict in hightechnology companies is on the rise. Cross-functional teams are becoming increasingly diverse in terms of age, gender, and ethnic diversity, which can exacerbate conflicts already triggered by functional diversity (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Kankanhalli, ⁎ Tel.: +1 303 556 5821; fax: +1 303 556 5899. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0019-8501/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.04.013

Tan, & Tan, 2007). Trends toward including customers in hightechnology NPD teams further increases member diversity. Traditional solutions for managing conflict, such as increasing spatial and temporal proximity, are not always practical given the increase in global virtual teams (Kankanhalli et al., 2007). As high-technology environments become increasingly fast-paced and complex, and as product innovation strategies become more aggressive, marketers and engineers become dependent upon one another for the expertise, information, and resources to do their jobs (Ruekert et al., 1985; Olson, Walker, & Ruekert, 1995); this increased interdependence, in turn, results in increased levels of conflict (Olson et al., 1995). This article reports the results of a qualitative research project designed to generate new insights, offer new recommendations, and fill selected gaps in marketing's high-technology literature regarding marketer–engineer conflict. Several factors motivated this research. First, qualitative research into the substantive issues underlying marketer–engineer conflict in high-technology companies has been scarce in the 15 years since Workman's (1993) seminal study. Roles and relationships between marketing and engineering have changed, as hightechnology products in popular culture morphed from sci-fi-inspired gadgetry to an integral part of daily life, and as target markets for hightechnology goods evolved from like-minded technophiles to everyday consumers (Mohr et al., 2005). This study explores the degree to which the substantive nature of conflict between marketers and engineers in high-technology environments has also evolved during that time. Second, during that same 15-year time-frame, marketing literature on interfunctional conflict has been largely dominated by multivariate Likert-scaled field surveys focused on resolving task-conflict, to the virtual exclusion of personal differences or relationship-conflict. Although early research studies reported that a substantial component of marketer–

654

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

engineer conflict could be explained by personal differences (Souder, 1977, 1981), later work would explicitly exclude personal differences (e.g., Song, Xie, & Dyer, 2000, p. 51) or report that the issue did not arise (e.g., Shaw, Shaw, & Enke, 2003, p. 496). Instead, marketers developed a strong body of literature focused on reducing task-based conflict with such integrating mechanisms as multi-functional training (Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Maltz & Kohli, 2000), formalization (Song & Thieme, 2006), job rotation (Song et al., 2000), cross-functional compensation (Maltz & Kohli, 2000), social interactions (Maltz & Kohli, 2000), and physical–spatial proximity (Griffin & Hauser, 1996; Maltz & Kohli, 2000). Of these, only cross-functional teams appear to be consistently effective (Maltz & Kohli, 2000; Olson et al.,1995) and solutions to marketer–engineer conflict have been hard to come by. Taking a different approach to the problem, the present study adopts a multi-dimensional view of marketer–engineer conflict in high-technology companies and considers personal as well as work-focused differences. A broad perspective of marketer–engineer conflict is important because recent studies in the management literature show that relationship-conflict has more pervasive negative effects than taskconflict and requires different strategies for resolution. If marketer– engineer conflict is indeed characterized by relationship-conflict as well as task-conflict, as anecdotal evidence certainly suggests, then there are substantial implications. For example, the high-technology marketing literature currently recommends that marketer–R&D conflict be resolved through increased communication about the issues, opensharing norms, and spirited discussion (see Mohr et al., 2005 for an excellent summary). New results indicate that, although such methods remain effective for task-conflict, they are now known to be counterproductive for reducing relationship-conflict (Jehn, 1997). To take a fresh look at the substantive issues underlying the conflict between marketers and engineers in high-technology companies, this study employs qualitative research methods including open-ended questions and the critical incident technique (Gremler, 2004), and gathers both marketers' and engineers' narratives about their attributions for conflict. To determine whether the conflicts are relationship-based or task-based, this study applies attribution theory. Attribution theory predicts that the parties involved in a conflict will naturally wonder “Why is this happening?” and attribute a cause. Content analysis, following the procedures developed by the critical incident technique and informed by attribution theory, categorizes the responses into personal (relationship-based) or situational (taskbased) causes. The results are discussed in the context of recent managerial research on interfunctional conflict. 2. Interfunctional conflict Recent research in the management literature identifies three types of interfunctional conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). The first two are situational or externally-based while the third is personal or internally-based, as discussed below. Task-conflict is defined as, “an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). Task-conflict is generally believed to be the most functional type of organizational conflict because it stimulates constructive debate about a shared problem such as new product design, which in turn leads to better decision-making and greater productivity (Jehn & Chatman, 2000; Jehn, 1994). Avoiding task-conflict can hinder a NPD group's ability to generate interesting or creative solutions. Some studies note that “…a paucity of constructive debate about the decision or task leads to suboptimal strategic planning, low financial performance, and decreased organizational growth” (Jehn & Chatman, 2000, p. 61). In general, task-conflict has a high potential for resolution given that group members are free to focus on the task itself and are not distracted by other conflicts or issues. As noted in the introduction, task-conflict has been the major focus of marketing literature on marketer–engineer conflict to date.

Similar to task-conflict, process-conflict is also a situation-based cause of organizational conflict. It is defined as “an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). Process-conflict has been associated with reduced productivity, increased role ambiguity, and a tendency for members to express a desire to switch groups or exit (Jehn, 1997); it can interfere with task quality and misdirect group members to focus on sometimes irrelevant process issues (Jehn et al., 1999). On the other hand, process-conflict can be functional at the beginning of a project when tasks, goals, and allocation of resources are being decided; as this study will show, it can also be dysfunctional when it becomes a distraction. Process-conflict also has a high potential for resolution: In many cases, group members need only refer to a procedures manual or ask for a decision by upper levels of management. In contrast to the previous two types of interfunctional conflict, the third type, relationship-conflict, is personally-based, dysfunctional, and difficult to resolve. Relationship-conflict is defined as “an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, includes affective components such as feeling tension and friction” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001, p. 238). Relationshipconflict has a negative effect on group performance, satisfaction, cohesiveness, goodwill, and mutual understanding; it also has negative effects on the individual members of the group, making them irritable, suspicious, negative, and resentful (Jehn, 1997). Relationship-conflict is believed to inhibit cognitive functioning and distract team members from the task at hand, causing them to work less effectively and produce suboptimal products. In contrast to task- or process-conflict, relationship-conflict has a low potential for resolution, especially if the conflict is long-standing, emotional, and important to the participants involved (Jehn, 1997). It is not considered to be beneficial at any point in a project (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Nevertheless, it is critically important that groups manage relationship-conflict successfully in the early stages of a project in order to successfully engage in the task-conflict required for high performance. Relationship-conflict has been under-researched in marketing in recent years and is of primary concern to the present research. 3. Attribution theory In order to understand interfunctional conflict, it is necessary to understand what the parties involved — in this case, high-technology marketers and engineers — believe to be the cause of their conflict. Attribution theory is uniquely suited to this question. According to attribution theory, parties involved in a conflict will naturally wonder “Why is this happening?” in the hope that if they understand its cause, they might be able to predict its future course (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). For example, if an engineer believes that “the marketing guy is always yelling at us because he can't handle stress”, then the engineer believes he can predict the marketer's behavior in future situations (“he's going to blow up every time he's under pressure”). In this scenario, the engineer made a personal attribution (indicating relationship-conflict). On the other hand, if the engineer thinks that the marketer “was really being pressured by that customer to get the product delivered on time”, then the engineer need not worry that the conflict must happen again. In the second scenario, the engineer made a task-based situational attribution. Attribution theory suggests that, all else being equal, the odds are in favor of making a personal attribution: 1) If the person is perceived to have had a choice about how to act; 2) if the behavior goes against generally accepted social norms; 3) if the behavior seems individualistic rather than role-related; 4) if the person's behavior had a personal impact on the observer; and 5) if the observer was an active participant in the event rather than a distant or passive observer. In each case, the observer is more likely to attribute the behavior to personality factors rather than to the situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). Moreover, the fundamental attribution bias recognizes that people tend to err on the side of personal attributions, instead of wondering how situational factors play a role (Heider, 1958; Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Ross, 1977). Taken together, attribution research predicts that, in the conflict between engineers and

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663 Table 1 Engineers' personal attributions about conflict with marketers Comments N % Personality traits • Arrogant

52

63 [Marketers] treat us like geeks with pocket protectors. [Marketers] are all about the hype. They're stupid — they can't do math.

• Exaggerate • Not detailoriented • Too emotional • No sense of urgency Don't understand 30 technology

Total personal attributions

Quotation exemplifying engineers' conflict-attribution

[Marketers] are too bubbly—especially at 7 a.m. [Marketers] need 20 meetings to decide on the next meeting. 37 This product is my baby. I put blood, sweat, and tears into the thing. I worried night and day about how to make it perfectly functional. This is my life, it's what I do. [My product] does everything it's supposed to…everything fits… this is the only way the thing will work. They [marketers] have no idea what goes into it and now they want to come along and change it. They don't know what they're talking about. 100

82

marketers, participants are more likely to make personal, rather than situational, attributions about each other. It is important to note that the attribution process is neither simple nor foolproof. For example, if the two parties do not like one another, have difficulty coming to agreements, or have been engaged in conflict over a long period of time, many task-based conflicts may be perceived as personal attacks. Since most attributions tend to be personal, rather than situational, task- or process-conflicts are frequently misinterpreted as relationship-conflict (Jehn, 1997). What is critical to resolving conflict is not addressing what the cause appears to be, but addressing what the parties involved believe the cause to be—i.e., who is to blame? Hence, understanding interfunctional conflict requires that the researcher examine the conflict attributions made by the parties involved. Finally, people not only make attributions about others' behavior but also make attributions about their own behavior. The actor– observer effect is the flip side of the fundamental attribution bias (Jones & Nisbett, 1972): Although people tend to make personal attributions about others, they tend to make situational attributions for their own behavior. This is because actors know their own motivations; they know the degree to which their own actions vary over time; and they know the impact of external constraints on their own behavior. Observers, on the other hand, may not have this contextual information and will make personal attributions in its absence. The actor– observer effect is further enhanced when the behavior in question is

655

negative, in a psychological effort to avoid responsibility. Of course, people make a personal self-attribution when it accurately reflects their motivations (Monson & Snyder, 1977). This study is the first to examine marketer–engineer self-attributions of conflict. Applied to the present context, an engineer who experiences a conflict with a marketer will also wonder: “What role did I play in this conflict?” The default prediction of the actor–observer effect is a situational attribution (“I was under pressure from management”), especially because conflict is generally viewed as negative. However, the attribution could be personal (“that's the kind of person I am”) if the engineer believes that her personality played a role in the conflict or that she would act the same way again given the same circumstances. 4. Method 4.1. Sample Respondents are comprised of both engineers and marketers from a wide variety of high-technology industries including computer software and hardware, enterprise resource management, measurement and control devices, telecommunications, medical instruments, pharmaceuticals, engineering and design services, advanced components for automotive and aircraft industries, among others. Data were collected in three data sets: The first data set is comprised of seniorand middle-level managers enrolled in two different Executive MBA classes at a large U.S. university. Although limitations with regard to generalizability must be recognized, the sample frame also had certain advantages. Because the respondents share many characteristics, differences between their viewpoints can be more readily attributed to their roles as “marketers” versus “engineers” rather than to demographic factors. For example, the respondents are all of a similar age (90% fall between the 30–45 year-old age bracket); family status (90% are married; most have children at home); education (all have undergraduate degrees; many have graduate degrees); income levels; and live in the same geographic region. Approximately 25% of the respondents work in marketing or sales roles; 75% of the respondents work in engineering, R & D, or other technical roles; 20% are female and 80% are male. Two additional data sets were collected at executive-level seminars, targeted to both engineers and marketers involved in R&D or NPD. The profile of seminar respondents is similar to that of the Executive MBAs. A total of 130 respondents participated in the study (86 engineers and 35 marketers), providing 349 other-attributions and 135 selfattributions. The response rate represents approximately 90% of the individuals enrolled in the classes or seminars; because respondents were asked to self-select if they fell into the “engineers/technical” group or the “marketers/sales” group, a small percent felt that they did not fall into either and opted out of the study.

Table 2 Engineers' situational attributions about conflict with marketers Comments N % Marketing doesn't add value

55

Marketing has unrealistic demands

52

Overpromises to customers

37

Perks and pay Total situational attributions

22 166

Quotation exemplifying engineers' conflict-attribution

33 We have had a set of the same products (high-technology, leading-edge software) for about five years. Yet marketing hasn't been able to “package” these products in a way that makes it a simple story for our customers. We have had many attempts but the response from the field (sales) is that the customer is not buying that particular message. 32 We are in the process of developing software and our marketing group wants everything! Also, they want everything within a specific time frame. Operations has asked them to rank features based on customer demand so that we can determine which f(x) will be incorporated into the software and which ones will end up in the next version. Currently my marketing group says everything is an A item and we can't remove anything. Based on our marketing “input,” we will fail because there is too much scope and not enough time to get it all done. 22 A common problem existing in my organization is the oversell of the product, based on “assumed” engineering related results and the actual results the product can produce. Thus, post-sale is primarily a customer cleanup resulting from the initial misrepresentation. The engineering staff has to explain why the product doesn't do what they expected, and why what it does do is better. 13 Marketers get to travel; take long lunches; have expense accounts. 100

656

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

Table 3 Marketers' personal attributions about conflict with engineers Comments N % Personality traits • Rigid • No respect for others • Too technical • Not creative • No social skills Engineers are not customer-focused

32

Quotation exemplifying marketers' conflict-attribution

32 [Engineers] can't move without a process flow chart. [Engineers] don't value marketing…they think products sell themselves. [Engineers] talk over the heads of marketers with a lot of acronyms. [Engineers] stifle creativity. They don't compromise. [Engineers] live in a personality vacuum. 41 We have a product that for much of its life cycle has been engineering driven. A few years ago, we spent a considerable amount of time, effort, and money on market research and client surveys to determine where to focus the next round to enhancements. The marketing group was new so the results were not given any credence. The engineer group dominated the feature release and eventually that product lost 30% of its market share. It has since been end-of-life. 18 [Engineers] don't understand business sense. They don't understand how to do business, how to price, how to work with channels, or how to sell the product. 9 [Engineers] say no to customer requirements. No is their first answer.

41

Engineers don't understand 19 the business Engineers are unresponsive 9 to requests Total personal attributions 101

100

4.2. Data collection In the first data set, respondents were asked open-ended questions about their attributions for the conflict between engineers and marketers. Questions were phrased in first-person voice (“why do you have a conflict with marketers…”) in contrast to the more distant third-party voice used in previous Likert-scaled research on this topic (e.g., “cultural differences exist between engineers and marketers”). The use of first-person voice was designed to trigger discussion of underlying personal issues that can be missed when questions are framed at a more abstract third-party level. Unique to this research, respondents were asked not only to make attributions about why they had conflicts with the other group, but also to make self-attributions about their own roles in the conflict. Pretest results revealed that when engineers were asked why they got into conflicts with marketers, they attributed the problems to the marketers; when marketers were asked why they got into conflicts with engineers, they attributed the problems to the engineers. Hence, a follow-up question explored whether each party understood his/her own role in the conflict: Engineers explained what it is about themselves that generated conflict with marketers (“why do marketers have conflict with you?”), and marketers explained what it is about themselves that generated conflict with engineers (“why do engineers have conflict with you?”). The second and third data sets (one executive MBA and one seminar data set) investigate marketer–engineer conflict using the critical incident technique (CIT). With CIT, respondents provide narratives about a critical event—in this case, an event that led to conflict between marketers and engineers—which the researcher then content analyzes into categories. In the present study, the CIT question used everyday language familiar to respondents, asking them to “think of a time when marketing (engineering) ‘just didn't get it.’

What happened?” Results reported here include not only categories of conflict attributions but also detailed verbatims that vividly illustrate the conflict and highlight specific issues that create conflict between marketers and engineers across a wide variety of companies. 4.3. Data analysis The qualitative data were analyzed following the CIT model outlined by Gremler (2004). Following Keaveney (1995), the item of analysis was individual phrases rather than the story as a whole. The principal researcher read and re-read, sorted and re-sorted the individual attributions, creating major categories for each of the four questions. Tables 1 and 2 report engineers' attributions about their conflict with marketers; Table 3 reports marketers' attributions about their conflict with engineers; Table 4 reports engineers' self-attributions about their own roles in the conflict; and Table 5 reports marketers' self-attributions about their own roles in the conflict). Three independent judges, who did not know the purpose of the study, then sorted the individual attributions into the categories provided. Inter-judge reliabilities for each question are as follows: Engineer-attributions (Tables 1 and 2: 91% for all three judges); marketer-attributions (Table 3: 89%, 87%, and 85% respectively); engineer self-attributions (Table 4: 98%, 93%, and 98% respectively), and marketer self-attributions (Table 5: 85%, 80%, and 85% respectively). Interpretive analysis and discussion of results utilizes three different “lenses.” First, the data are interpreted from an attribution theory perspective in order to identify to whom (personal) or what (situational) marketers and engineers attribute the blame for their conflict. Second, the results are interpreted from a conflict theory perspective in order to identify relationship-, task-, and process-conflicts. Third, the results are

Table 5 Marketers' self-attributions about their own roles in the conflict Comments N %

Table 4 Engineers' self-attributions of their own roles in the conflict Comments N % Personality traits • Too technical • Don't respect others • Geeks Unresponsive to requests Not customer-focused/ too product-focused Total

54

Quotation exemplifying engineers' self-attribution

62

22

26

10

12

86

100

[Marketers] hate it when we [engineers] talk in acronyms. We [engineers] think they're stupid idiots (nothing personal!). We [engineers] are aloof, dull, boring geeks. We [engineers] don't jump when they [marketers]want the product of the week. I don't care about the customer as much as the technology.

Personal self-attributions Personality 18 traits Situational self-attributions Too 15 demanding Overpromise to customers Perks and pay

4 6

Power issues 7 Total 50

Quotation exemplifying marketers' self-attribution

36 We [marketers] can't see what's so cool about something complicated, or why things take so long.

30 Marketers don't take “no” for an answer, and are always asking “why.” We make [the engineers'] lives more difficult. 8 We [marketers] sell products that they [engineers] haven't made yet. 12 We [marketers] travel. We have glamorous jobs. We get all the press. We get all the perks. We get all the money. 14 We take power away from them [the engineers]. 100

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

compared to the in-depth description of a high-technology engineeringdriven firm provided by Workman (1993) in order to update and extend the marketing literature. 5. Engineers' attributions about their conflict with marketers Engineers provided a total of 248 attributions about why they had conflicts with marketers. Eighty-two, or 33% of the total, are personal (shown in Table 1) and 166, or 67% of the total, are situational (shown in Table 2). As introduced above, the study defines personal attributions as responses in which engineers blame the conflict on personal characteristics of marketers themselves and situational attributions are responses in which engineers attribute the cause of the conflict to “marketing” or “the marketing department” rather than to a person. 5.1. Engineers' personal attributions about their conflict with marketers 5.1.1. Personality traits Of the 82 personal attributions, 63% are attributed to the marketers' personality traits. Five themes are shown in Table 1. The first theme, “marketer arrogance,” includes engineers' comments such as, “they [marketers] think they know everything,” and “they think they can do a better job themselves.” Marketers convey arrogance when they remind engineers that, “Without me, you wouldn't have a job.” These results indicate a rather radical turnabout from the high-technology engineering-dominant culture described by Workman (1993, p. 413). At that time, arrogance was on the side of the engineers who made such comments as, “Don't listen to marketers—they don't have the expertise anyway.” In the second theme, engineers say that their conflict with marketers is because marketers are “all about the hype”. Complaints range from the mild (“too much sunshine”), to the moderate (“they exaggerate” or are “misleading”), to the severe (“they're all liars”), revealing the sometimes highly-charged emotions that accompany relationship-conflict. The engineers' attributions confirm that some conflicts have changed little in the 15 years since Workman (1993) — in least some high-technology organizations, marketers still have little credibility among engineers. In the third theme, engineers attribute their conflicts with marketers to the perception that “marketers are not sufficiently detail-oriented,” unfocused, and undisciplined. This theme includes the most negative and emotion-laden personal comments, such as “they're all stupid” and “they're idiots.” When personal differences are burdened with negative emotions in this way, they obstruct the open exchange of task-related ideas necessary for high-technology teams to perform well, suppress team members' willingness to volunteer creative new ideas, and distract the team from task-related problem-solving. In the fourth theme, engineers blame their conflict with marketers on the perception that marketers are “too emotional”. They feel that marketers are overly demonstrative, as evidenced by comments that marketers are too touchy-feely, extroverted, optimistic, and outgoing. This is an interesting yet puzzling complaint, given that most literature in conflict-management supports a positive attitude among team members as a good a way to build a more cohesive and supportive team. Finally, in the fifth theme, the engineers blame marketers for having “no sense of urgency”. Comments include “Marketers are too long-winded,” and “They take too long to make decisions and talk too much.” The engineers' comments demonstrate how unresolved process-conflict about such issues as how to make decisions or how to conduct meetings can escalate into the more difficult-to-resolve relationship-conflict. 5.1.2. Marketers don't understand technology As above, the second category of engineers' attributions about their conflicts with marketers is personal; i.e., engineers attribute the conflict to the marketers themselves rather than to situational pressures. In this case, the theme is that marketers don't appreciate good design. Engineers experience conflict when marketers don't

657

understand engineering and don't understand how hard it is to design and produce a good product. The complaint that marketers do not understand technology is well known and rather long-standing (Workman 1993; Shaw et al., 2003; Shaw & Shaw, 1998). The present study confirms that the problem persists. Uniquely, this study offers new insights as to why engineers feel as strongly and personally as they do. Specifically, the results of this study emphasize that engineers take their design work quite personally. To an engineer, this conflict is not about the technology, it is about the engineer's personal identity and being. A marketer who does not take the time to fully understand a new product's design has not simply shown a bit of disregard for technology but is showing disrespect for the engineer himself. Because engineers internalize product design as a personal achievement, any discussion of revisions or changes can be easily misinterpreted as a personal insult. In this way, what appears to be (and should remain) task-conflict can escalate into more difficult to resolve relationship-conflict. 5.2. Engineers' situational attributions about their conflict with marketing Of the 248 total attributions by engineers about their conflicts with marketers, approximately 166 or 67% are classified as situational, as shown in Table 2. Four main themes are identified. 5.2.1. Marketing doesn't add value This theme summarizes engineers' confusion about the marketing function and its contribution to the organization. Some comments encompass task-conflict by questioning which tasks marketing is supposed to do and why. Other comments encompass process-conflict by questioning how marketing is supposed to do its job. For example, to many engineers, marketing does not appear to have any accountability to the organization. Questions like “where's the value?” and “where does all the money go?” express the engineers' frustration as well as their lack of knowledge about the marketing function. Engineers say that the marketing department wastes money, spends too much, and has too little to show for it. They question marketing's contribution to the bottom line and conclude that marketing is all overhead. Engineers believe the marketing department fails to add value when it cannot create a value proposition or find a suitable market for the engineers' products. Left unaddressed, these specific frustrations fester into global dissatisfaction that the marketing department isn't doing its job. Comments like “they can't forecast to save their lives,” “their expectations are always too rosy,” and “they live in a fantasy world,” provide evidence that unresolved task- and process-conflict has escalated into relationship-conflict. The ultimate expression of frustration is heard from engineers who conclude that the entire field of marketing is so much “fluff.” Some engineers feel that marketing is too soft-and-fuzzy, wishy-washy, and touchy-feely. They disdain marketing as a “soft science” and shake their metaphorical heads at a field that is subjective, undisciplined, and without rules. Some engineers disregard marketing jobs as easy and trivial, and dislike the fact that “there's no right answer and no proof.” These comments can be summarized in two major themes: One, engineers' lack of knowledge about marketing's role in the organization promotes personal attributions of marketer incompetence for issues that might actually have been task-related. Two, unresolved task-conflict about which tasks marketing is supposed to be doing, and how, festers into the kind of emotion-laden relationship-conflict that harms an interfunctional group's ability to perform. 5.2.2. Marketing makes unrealistic demands Consistent with prior research, this study reports that engineers experience conflict when marketers make unrealistic demands about delivery times, product features, and prices in order to satisfy the customer. Engineers complain that marketers “want everything

658

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

yesterday” and “think everything [engineers] do is easy” or “should be quick.” Marketers' “unrealistic demands” include constantly changing requirements, strategies, or time frames. Engineers say that marketers are not clear, don't study customer requirements in depth, select the wrong features, and fail to consult engineers. The litany of unrealistic demands is so common that it has become rather a mainstay of marketer–engineer conflict studies. However, it is interesting to note that, in contrast to most of the critical incidents reported thus far, the verbatims in this category are characterized by well-reasoned, calm, logical, and task-focused language. Rather than considering this a conflict to be resolved, the present study proposes that marketers' unrealistic demands fall into the realm of expected and even productive task-related conflict. Marketing's role in the organization is to understand customer requirements and bring them back to engineering; predictably, customers will change their minds about product features or demand faster delivery times; and it is not unreasonable to expect that engineers will resist making changes given the belief that they have already devised the optimum solution. This study proposes that such task-focused conflicts should be encouraged, in an open and supportive manner, to reach productive solutions. Constraints should be placed on resolving the issues within a reasonable time frame, so that unresolved task- or process-conflicts do not regress into relationship-conflict. 5.2.3. Marketing overpromises to customers Engineers also blame their conflicts with marketers on their seeming propensity to sell products, services, capabilities, add-ons, etc. that the company doesn't actually make. Engineers become frustrated and angry when marketers “sell what we aren't,” “want what we can't and won't make,” and “don't check with engineering on design.” According to engineers, marketers sell possibilities not products, don't truly understand the feasibility of delivering—and, worse, don't ask. Marketers believe they are being responsive to customers, but engineers attribute their acquiescence to weakness or laziness. Engineers report that marketers even expect operations to work overtime to meet overlyoptimistic promises about delivery, and feel resentful when marketers hover over the engineering team to monitor progress. When compared to the organizational culture described by Workman (1993), it becomes clear that these comments reflect a paradigm shift within high-technology companies from being engineering-driven to being customer-driven. Instead of a world where high-technology product specifications were the exclusive domain of engineering, engineers now complain that product enhancements and delivery schedules are revised by marketing to meet customer requirements. Moreover, quotes such as “marketing expected operations to work overtime to meet the new requirements” and marketing “sat over the top of engineering team to monitor progress” would have been unheard of in Workman's Zytek company. As with the “marketing makes unrealistic demands” category, the present study proposes that task- or process-conflict about how to meet customer requirements should be encouraged in order to get the issues out on the table and thereby resolve them. However, a clear expectation that problems be resolved in a positive and timely manner is necessary to prevent task- and process-conflict from deteriorating into relationship-conflict. For example, note that engineers sometimes made personal attributions of laziness and weakness when describing taskrelated issues such as marketers' responsiveness to customers. 5.2.4. Perks and pay In the fourth and final category of engineers' situational attributions, engineers blame their conflict with marketers on seemingly inequitable reward systems. There is both jealousy and humor in the following litany of complaints: Marketers “dress too well,” “are better looking,” “drive nice cars,” “make more money,” “have better offices,” “take long lunches,” “get to take trips,” “have large expense accounts,” “get better perks,” “have better relationships with senior manage-

ment,” and “throw better parties.” Perks-and-pay are categorized as situational attributions because conflict is attributed to an external source (the company's compensation system), and as process-conflict because it focuses on resource allocation rather task issues. Nevertheless, “perks and pay” has a high risk of turning into relationshipconflict when accompanied by feelings of jealousy and envy. Besides identifying a new type of engineer-marketer conflict, the perks-and-pay category provides further evidence of a paradigm shift away from the engineering-driven culture described by Workman (1993), to a high-tech organizational culture in which marketing has a more equal, if not dominant, role. In Workman's (1993) Zytek corporation, pay scales, professional development programs, and advancement all favored engineers. The present study's revelation that engineers perceive that compensation systems now favor marketers is new, and is a source of conflict for engineers. 6. Marketers' attributions about their conflict with engineers Marketers generated 101 attributions about their conflicts with engineers, as shown in Table 3. Virtually all marketer attributions about engineers' roles in the conflict are personal, which is indicative of high levels of relationship-conflict. Analysis of critical incidents in light of both attribution and management-conflict theories reveals that conflict which appears on the surface to be caused by task- or process-related issues often has a deeper foundation in relationship-conflict. 6.1. Personality traits Seemingly in a spirit of turnabout as fair play, marketers blame their conflict with engineers on the engineers' personalities, just as engineers blame marketers. Five conflict-causing personality traits of engineers are identified. The first is that “engineers are too rigid” and includes comments by marketers that engineers are inflexible and overly process-oriented. Marketers say that engineers inhibit brainstorming sessions and can't move forward without a process flow chart. The second trait, “engineers have no respect for others,” includes marketers' complaints that engineers don't recognize or value others' expertise: “Engineers demean the intellect of marketers.” “They think they could do this [marketing] better. They think they are the only necessity.” As one marketer put it, “They have an expertise. I have an expertise. But they just don't see that.” Engineers' disrespect for marketing identified in the results reported here appears to be a continuation of the top–down institutionalized disrespect described in such detail by Workman 15 years ago (1993; see for example the Zytek CEO's speech to top managers on p. 405). Although some executives in engineer-driven companies continue to believe that conflict and competition between engineers and marketers motivates both to work harder, current research emphasizes that mutual respect is absolutely critical if interfunctional teams are to perform well. The third trait, “engineers are too technical,” reflects marketers' views that engineers speak in alphabet-laden jargon and give verbose explanations to any question, as these comments show: “They try to baffle you with b.s. that may not even be true.” “They can never just explain what they do.” “Talk English please—not your ‘tech' language.” The use of “insider” versus “outsider” language is a common technique used to cement in-group bonds and put up barriers against out-group individuals. These comments suggest that marketers are detecting continued efforts by engineers to protect the engineering in-group, solidify internal coalitions, and deflect the influence of the outsidermarketers. Such behavior leads to unproductive relationship-conflict and distracts group members from focusing on the NPD task. The fourth trait, “engineers have no creativity,” includes marketers' complaints that engineers lack creativity and “can't think outside the box.” “They see the world as black-and-white and “just don't get it.” This theme is a surprising new perspective when compared to the engineering-dominant world described by Workman (1993), in which

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

all creativity and new product ideas were believed to be generated by engineering. For example, the socially-constructed myths that supported engineering's power, and were believed to account for Zytek's success, included the myths that “marketing will never come up with a new idea” (p. 405) and that all new product ideas were created by engineering. In contrast, comments by marketers in the present study paint an entirely different picture 15 years later. Finally, the fifth trait, “engineers have no social skills,” includes assorted comments by marketers that their conflict with engineers is caused by the engineers' lack of social skills. To marketers, engineers have no sense of humor, tell jokes that aren't funny, are “too dang serious” and need to lighten up. Worse, according to marketers, engineers “never, ever, pick up the check.” Here again, conflict attributed to personality issues is quite real and usually painful to the parties involved, yet has no substantive relevance to the focal tasks of new product development. Such relationship-conflict only breeds disharmony and distracts team members from the work-related tasks at hand (Jehn 1995, 1997). 6.2. Engineers are not customer-focused/too product-focused A frequent theme heard from marketers is that the engineering group designs and makes what they think is a good product rather than what the customer actually wants. As one marketer notes, “They don't realize that the customer pays them.” Marketers experience conflict when engineers put technology ahead of customer needs. “They act like they know what's best for the customer…when they've never even talked to them.” According to marketers, engineers overdesign, over-engineer, and get lost in the details. “Sure xyz is cool, but it doesn't help the customer.” Marketers feel that engineers' devotion to technical detail over customer needs hurts the firm's ability to respond competitively in the marketplace. A related problem is engineering's unwillingness to meet deadlines. “They're scared to commit to a delivery schedule.” “It takes too long to deliver the product.” “They always have late releases.” “They lack a sense of urgency.” Marketers feel caught in the middle, trying to placate customers who want the product now but are unable to get it. Because the marketers' attribute the conflict to the engineers' themselves, rather than to situational factors, these critical incidents are categorized as personal. A careful reading reveals that many task- and process-related issues are at the core, but anger and frustration have led to dysfunctional relationship-conflict, particularly when the parties were unable to resolve the original task- or process-conflict. An outside and disinterested reader might wonder, “Why can't these people resolve these issues?” “Why doesn't management step in and provide some direction?” The answer is that the undertone of relationship-conflict, which either preceded or resulted from the continuing conflict, is now preventing the parties involved from being able to discuss the taskrelated issues in a focused, dispassionate, and objective manner. 6.3. Engineers don't understand business In the third major category, marketers say that they experience conflict with engineers because the engineers take a “micro view of the world.” As another marketer puts it, “they have a granular view versus a global view.” To marketers, engineers don't understand the overall business. “Engineers are such geeks. There is more to business than building products.” For many years, engineers have accused marketers of not understanding technology (often rightly so). It is interesting to see that, in this study, marketers are “pushing back” with accusations about engineers' limitations about not understanding the overall business. The substantive nature of the marketers' comments, that engineers do not understand the bigger picture, is a relatively new perspective since Workman's (1993) analysis. Here again, the emotional tone of the comments (“engineers are such geeks”) suggest that the substantive issues are exacerbated by irritation and annoyance.

659

6.4. Engineers are unresponsive to requests The fourth and final category of marketers' personal attributions about engineers focuses on perceptions that engineers ignore or refuse marketers' or customers' requests. “They put up barriers to improving the product. They lack product pride.” “They look for opportunities to say no.” “There are too many reasons, issues, problems.” “They don't listen. They won't listen.” Once again, these comments provide clear evidence of task-conflict (i.e., what should be delivered to customers and when) that has deteriorated into relationship-conflict. It is easy to see that such attitudes are dysfunctional, preventing the members of the team from working well together or providing good service to customers, and thus obstructing the team's performance. 7. Self-attributions of engineers and marketers This section reports results of engineers' and marketers' selfattributions about their own roles in the conflict. This is the first study of its kind to report self-attributions. Engineers were asked to discuss, “Why don't marketers get along with you?” and marketers were asked to discuss, “Why don't engineers get along with you?” A total of 136 self-attributions were reported, 86 from engineers (shown in Table 4) and 50 from marketers (shown in Table 5). Self-attributions allow the researcher to gauge the accuracy of the other-attributions and gain insights about what motivates the engineers and marketers to engage in interfunctional conflict. 7.1. Engineers' self-attributions Contrary to the expectations of attribution theory, engineers' selfattributions are all personal. This is somewhat surprising, given that attribution theory predicts that individuals will usually give situational “excuses” for their behavior in the interest of self-protection, to show their behavior in a better light, or to explain what external factors might indeed have affected their behavior (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). On the other hand, according to attribution theory, people primarily provide personal attributions of their own behavior when it is true. There are three main categories of engineers' self attributions. The largest category, “personality traits” is a surprisingly good match to the marketers' other-attributions about them. Engineers see themselves as “factual, complex, analytical, precise, detail-oriented, resultsoriented, conservative, technical, and well-organized” individuals who talk in acronyms, and acknowledge that such qualities can lead to conflict with marketers. They admit to a deficit of social skills, unfashionable dress, and blindness to social cues. “We're blind to body language. Blind period.” “We don't recognize a customer when we see one. We would embarrass them [marketers] if they took us to visit a customer and we'd get lost on the way anyway. And, we never pick up a bill.” Engineers also acknowledge an unsubtle disrespect of marketers. “We think we know everything” and “We're not open to seeing the value of marketing.” Second, engineers admit that they are not responsive to requests — again, a good match to marketers' perceptions. Their lack of responsiveness is sometimes circumstantial and sometimes deliberate. For example, engineers admit that they not above a bit of retaliation. They confess that they sometimes tell marketers “more than they need to know” or, at other times, deliberately withhold information. Some admit to saying “No” more often than is strictly called for. “We say why it can't be done and not how to do it.” Engineers confess that they ignore marketers, do their own thing, and don't design what is really asked for. “Our processes don't always align with or provide for marketing's needs.” “We limit them” (this was considered a good thing). Third, as the marketers correctly perceived, engineers admit to over-designing, being too product-focused, and being not-at-all customer-focused. Some engineers said that they simply don't care about the issues that are critical to successfully marketing a product.

660

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

For example, some engineers stated outright that they don't care about aesthetics, don't care about how a product looks and only care about its functionality. Engineers also agreed that delivery times are a major issue. “Our delivery times are always ‘slipping.’” “We are too slow and everything they ask us to do is too hard.” “Everything always takes 2 years to build.” “We're always messing with things” and “get into too much detail.” A few even claimed, “I don't care if it sells. I don't care if the company makes money, especially the higher ups.” Some of the results confirm the engineer stereotype, such as being serious, aloof, or scientifically-inclined. Other results seem to be surprisingly candid admissions of the engineers' own roles in promoting conflict. Confessions of active disrespect, deliberately ignoring request, disregarding customer or company interests, and other dysfunctional attitudes indicate an urgent need for managers to understand why such negative attitudes and behaviors exist. Certainly, these engineers express poor morale, job dissatisfaction, and a lack of commitment; on the other hand, their candid revelations about conflict-laden work environments merit closer investigation. 7.2. Marketers' self-attributions Marketers' self-attributions about what roles they themselves play in their conflicts with engineers are mostly situational (see Table 5); only about one-third of their self-attributions are ascribed to their own personality traits. Their situational responses are consistent with attribution theory, which predicts that either the marketers are trying to protect themselves or that their perceptions of the situation are true. In terms of the personal self-attributions, as the engineers correctly perceived, marketers admit that they like to brainstorm in meetings, are undisciplined, fail to follow process charts, introduce non-quantitative issues, are creative and decidedly non-technical. Also as the engineers perceived, the marketers acknowledge that they simply fail to appreciate “gee-whiz” technology. As discussed in an earlier section, their rather cavalier attitudes about technology are likely to insult engineers who take personal pride in their product designs. In terms of situational attributions, marketers believe that the marketing job requires them to push engineers beyond their comfort zones, drive them to develop unknown solutions or find new ways of doing things. Marketers also suggest that the job forces them to overcommit, oversell, sell products that don't exist, and sell at overlydiscounted prices—though not all marketers agree that such allegations are true. This proactive and even aggressive attitude on the part of marketers is a marked contrast from marketing's back-seat role in the Zytek company described by Workman (1993) and, not surprisingly, causes conflict. Marketers acknowledge that some of the conflict is caused by inequalities in perks and pay—a sore point with engineers. Finally, marketers note that the organizational shift in power from engineering to marketing creates conflict between marketers and engineers. Marketing's evolution in high-tech companies to a position that is equal or even dominant over engineering is more consistent with the kind of customer- or market-orientation seen in non-technical companies, and is in contrast to the engineering-driven culture described by Workman (1993). 8. Discussion and managerial implications 8.1. What is new? A summary of key findings 8.1.1. Personal attributions and relationship-conflict A key finding of this study is that both marketers and engineers in high-technology companies attribute a substantial portion of their conflict to personal differences. By cross-checking marketers' and engineers' attributions against their self-attributions, the study

concludes that the high proportion of personal attributions are not a result of the fundamental attribution error, which favors personal attributions, but rather indicates the presence of significant relationship-conflict. Although widely discussed in management literature, relationship-conflict is mostly overlooked in the marketing literature, which either excludes personal differences (Song et al., 2000, p. 51) or has not detected it (Shaw et al., 2003, p. 496). Finding that relationshipconflict is a major component of marketer–engineer conflict is important because relationship-conflict is the most dysfunctional type of conflict and serves no beneficial purpose at any point in a project (Jehn, 1997). Relationship-conflict has been shown to prevent interfunctional work teams from focusing on task-critical debate, such as prioritizing customer needs and selecting product features, and leads to pointless interpersonal bickering among team members. In the worst-case scenario, relationship-conflict can escalate into workplace violence. As Jehn (1997, p. 553) warns, “although fist fights and brawls are not frequent occurrences in most modern organizations, actual behavioral violence has ‘increased almost 200% in the American workplace over the past two decades' (Stone 1995)… more common are behavioral displays such as yelling, banging fists, and slamming doors.” 8.1.2. Emotionality and antagonism A second major finding of this study is the high degree of emotionality and antagonism in the workplace experiences of both engineers and marketers. The use of qualitative research methods, such as the CIT, encouraged respondents to discuss workplace conflicts anonymously and in their own words, thereby allowing emotional elements contained within the narratives to be revealed. For example, engineers admit that they impede the work of marketers deliberately, ignore requests, and “just say no” because they can— evidence of a surprising degree of antagonism given engineers' selfimages of being factual, objective, and analytical. They admit that their disrespect for marketers is often openly-expressed, widely-shared and intentional—not much different from the engineering-dominant organizational culture described by Workman (1993). For their part, marketers foster conflict with their admissions that they push engineers to the limit, force them out-of-the-box, and generally make their lives more difficult. Marketers also fail to appreciate what they refer to as “gee-whiz” technology, an attitude that fails to promote harmony with engineers. Antagonism both sides hinders team performance, reduces job satisfaction, lowers work quality and productivity, and generally suggests that a degree of urgency with regard to resolving marketer–engineer conflict is called for. 8.1.3. The good kind of conflict The results of this study suggest that task-focused conflict between marketers and engineers in high-technology companies can be boiled down to two major issues: 1) internal decisions about product features and delivery schedules; 2) external decisions about what to promise customers and when. It is hard to imagine that disagreements and opposing viewpoints would ever cease to exist in these critical areas of new product development, and hence discussion of such taskfocused conflicts leading to timely resolution should be encouraged. However, this study also reveals that, in a large number of critical incidents, task- or process-conflict had become seriously laden with relationship-conflict, and hence virtually irresolvable. Whether personal differences are long-standing, or develop as a consequence of failing to resolve task- or process-issues in a timely manner, once relationship-conflict develops the parties involved will no longer be able to discuss task-related issues dispassionately. Name-calling, personal attributions of blame, dislike, and other dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors keep engineers and marketers locked in interpersonal battles and unable to move forward in a productive manner.

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

8.1.4. High-technology: a whole new world of conflict A fourth finding of this study is that the world of high technology has changed in many ways from the world described by Workman (1993). First, some marketers now believe it to be their responsibility to push engineers out of their comfort zones, get them to think out of the box, force them to come up with creative solutions—a notable change from the “engineering-owns-product-development” culture described by Workman (1993). Second, the engineers and marketers in the high-technology companies in this study report that marketing's influence is increasing, particularly with regard to meeting customers and presenting customer requirements to engineering—an influence that seems more consistent with non-technical industries. This is in marked contrast to Workman's (1993, p. 412) Zytek company in which only the engineers met with customers, and high-tech customers said “for God's sake, don't bring any of those marketing folks.” Third, the present study reveals that perks and pay often favor marketers, in contrast to the more favorable pay scales and professional advancement opportunities reported by Workman (1993). Fourth, at least in some high-technology companies, power has shifted away from engineering and toward marketing. This again is a dramatic change from the environment reported by Workman (1993, p. 412), such as, “people in marketing generally agree that engineering controls the critical strategic decisions.” Whereas Workman's (1993) respondents discussed “marketing reactions to engineering power,” respondents in the present study discussed how marketing takes power from engineering and causes conflict by doing so. 8.2. What to do? Managerial recommendations 8.2.1. Manage and redirect attributions The results reported in this study highlight the fact that a high proportion of dysfunctional conflict is caused by inaccurate personal attributions. As attribution theory explains, personal attributions are the default when situational explanations are not available. For example, when engineers cannot complete a project on time, but do not explain why, marketers may attribute the reason to engineers' laziness, lack of urgency, or overemphasis on bells-and-whistles. When marketers cannot sell the product, but do not explain why, engineers may attribute the reason to marketers' laziness, stupidity, or incompetence. Therefore, managers in high-technology companies should mitigate marketer–engineer conflict by proactively offering situational explanations to replace dysfunctional, and often inaccurate, personal attributions. To do this, managers should train engineers and marketers to proactively communicate the task-, process, or other external forces that are creating conflict and thereby supersede the invention of personal attributions by default. The availability of situational explanations may also explain the success of cross-functional teams over other integrating mechanisms: When marketers and engineers work closely together on a project team, situational explanations are more easily accessible and visible to all group members. Crosstraining can also help to replace the knowledge gap that leads to personal attributions by default. For example, conflict might be reduced if engineers understand why marketing is a critical function within the organization, how it contributes to the bottom-line, and why it is necessary for all employees to be more customer-focused. Engineers might respond well to empirical evidence that a marketorientation is critical if R&D and NPD engineers are to design successful breakthrough innovations (Kirca, Jayachanran, & Bearden, 2005). Some sources have even suggested that engineers be required to take a basic marketing course. For their part, marketers have been known to benefit from taking the time to gain a better understanding of technology (Workman, 1993; Shaw et al., 2003). In summary, increased knowledge about one another's functions will help to

661

prevent harmful personal attributions made by default in the absence of information. 8.2.2. Manage–don't ignore–personality differences It is not always be possible to redirect attributions. Some conflict is indeed due to personality differences, as this study confirms through the marketers' and engineers' own self-attributions. Simply stated, the results reported here confirm that marketers and engineers are very different types of people. Managers must facilitate understanding across different personality types using cognitive style indicators such as the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985) or the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (Kiersey & Bates, 1984), which have been shown effective in understanding the behavior of both marketing managers (White, Varadarajan, & Dacin, 2003) and engineers (Chen & Lin, 2004). While this recommendation is not new, the results of this study stress the continuing importance of managing personality issues between marketers and engineers, a factor which has been surprisingly overlooked in favor of task-related conflict over the past 15 years of interfunctional conflict research in marketing. 8.2.3. Resolve relationship conflict early Relationship-conflict should be stopped at the earliest possible opportunity (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). For example, in the early stages of group formation, team members develop norms about how differences of opinion, disagreements, and conflicts will be resolved and managers should implement conflict training at that time. If “storming” is not overcome in the early developmental phases, negative patterns of interaction are likely to continue and even escalate (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985; Jehn, 1997; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Groups with early indications of relationship-conflict also have more difficulty meeting deadlines and experience escalating conflict as deadlines approached (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). This last issue is particularly relevant given the high proportion of deadline-related conflict-narratives reported by both engineers and marketers in this study (e.g., “engineers have no sense of urgency”, “marketers made us work overtime,”). To resolve relationship-conflict early, managers must set appropriate group norms. While open, free-flowing, spirited, and supportive discussion of diverse task-related viewpoints enhances team performance, it has the opposite effect on relationship-conflict. Open group norms about discussing relationship-conflict tend to increase both the number and the intensity of relationship-conflicts, reduce the group's effectiveness and performance, and inhibit team members' abilities to deal constructively with the conflict (Jehn, 1997, p. 552). Higherperforming and more-effective groups have open norms about taskconflict but closed defensive norms about discussing relationshipconflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). Therefore, interfunctional group norms should 1) proscribe public airing of relationship-conflict; 2) promote respect, value diverse opinions, and support group cohesion; 3) establish politeness norms to enhance civilized discourse; and 4) promote open, supportive discussion of task-related issues. 8.2.4. Utilize tools to focus discussions of task-conflict Paradoxically, current research in management warns against too much harmony for fear that it will derail the beneficial effects of taskconflict. On the other hand, decisions must be made about task- and process-conflicts in a productive and timely manner, not only for effective team performance but also to avoid situations where unresolved task-conflict deteriorates into relationship-conflict. External tools are available to facilitate marketing and engineering interaction. Mohr (2000), for example, suggests the use of quality function deployment (QFD) to incorporate the voice of the customer into product design decisions (Griffin & Hauser, 1992). Michalek, Feinberg, and Papalambros (2002) introduced Analytical Target Cascading (ACT) to help coordinate marketing and engineering perspectives on design. Such tools focus marketing and engineering

662

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

attention on the product design task, provide ways to systematically incorporate customer information, and encourage productive marketing–engineering interaction. Cronin and Weingart (2007) introduced a third tool, the GAEO model (goals, assumptions, elements, and operators), which provides guidelines about where teams should seek consensus and where teams should value diverse opinions. For example, the GAEO proposes that interfunctional teams should align the team's goals, but need only align their assumptions in situations where team members could violate each other's assumptions. Thus, team members should agree on new product features, delivery dates, and how much to promise customers, since those factors affect all members of the team. On the other hand, team members should retain and utilize the unique body of knowledge of their respective domains. That is, engineers should be free to make technical decisions, and marketers should be free to make media decisions, independently. Finally, Elliott, Kaufman, Gardner, and Burgess (2002) describe a model for an interactive web-based simulation designed to teach students (or employees) to deal with conflict. Though the context of their simulation is a land use conflict between developers and environmentalists, the model could be applied to interfunctional team conflict, utilizing the detailed narratives provided by the critical incident technique to provide rich contextual details. 8.3. Limitations and future research Every research project has limitations which, in turn, provide avenues for future research. For example, this study shares the limitations of any qualitative study, including what Wells (2001) refers to as the “peril of n = 1” or the interpretation of qualitative data by one or a few principal researchers. Though ethnographers consider the intersection of researcher and the data to be one of the major contributions of qualitative research, it must also be acknowledged as a limitation. Second, the limited generalizability of a non-random sample should also be acknowledged, although the demographic similarities of the sample allowed greater confidence in attributing differences in viewpoints to the marketer/engineer distinction. Third, respondents self-selected group membership, which may have encouraged a feeling of “relative functional identification” (Fisher et al., 1997) or “professional versus bureaucratic orientation” (Gupta et al., 1986). If so, this could encourage respondents to have a stronger identification with their professional group than with the overall organization, which in turn could increase their awareness of conflict. Finally, all questions asked about conflict, since it is the focus of the study; this approach assumes that some degree of conflict is present and does not provide a good indication of conflict's natural presence or absence.

References Bettenhausen, K., & Murnighan, J. K. (1985). The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 350−372. Chen, S. -J., & Lin, L. (2004). Modeling team member characteristics for the formation of a multifunctional team in concurrent engineering. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(2), 111−124. Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761−773. Elliott, M., Kaufman, S., Gardner, R., & Burgess, G. (2002). Teaching conflict assessment and frame analysis through interactive web-based simulations. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), 320−340. Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworksi, B. J. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 54−70. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. New York: Random House.

Gremler, D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65−89. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1992). Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering, and manufacturing — A comparison between two new product teams. Management Science, 38, 360−373. Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(May), 191−215. Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (1986). A model for studying R&D–marketing interface in the product innovation process. Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 7−17. Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: an investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223−238. Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256−282. Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530−557. Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56−73. Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2), 238−251. Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741−763. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior Morristown NJ: General Learning Press. Kankanhalli, A., Tan, C. Y., & Tan, K. -K. (2007). Conflict and performance in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 237−274. Keaveney, S. M. (1995). Customer switching behavior in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 65−83. Kiersey, D., & Bates, M. M. (1984). Please Understand Me: Character & Temperament Types. Del Mar CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Co. Kirca, A. H., Jayachanran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: a metaanalytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24−41. Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (2000). Reducing marketing's conflict with other functions: The differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 479−492. Menon, A., Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1997). Product quality: Impact of interdepartmental interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(3), 187−200. Michalek, J. J., Feinberg, F. M., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2005). Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 42−62. Mohr, Jakki (2000). The marketing of high-technology products and services: Implications for curriculum content and design. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(3), 246−259. Mohr, J., Sengupta, S., & Slater, S. (2005). Marketing of High-Technology Products and Innovations. NJ: Prentice–Hall. Monson, T., & Snyder, M. (1977). Actors, observers, and the attribution process: Toward a reconceptualization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 89−111. Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers– Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: The moderating role of product innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 48−62. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 10. (pp. ). Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (1987). Marketing's interaction with other functional units: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 1−19. Ruekert, R. W., Walker, O. C., & Roering, K. J. (1985). The organization of marketing activities: A contingency theory of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 13−25. Shaw, V., & Shaw, C. T. (1998). Conflict between engineers and marketers: The engineer's perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 27, 279−291. Shaw, V., Shaw, C. T., & Enke, M. (2003). Conflict between engineers and marketers: the experience of German engineers. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 489−499. Song, M., & Thieme, R. J. (2006). A cross-national investigation of the R&D-marketing interface in the product innovation process. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 308−322. Song, M. X., Xie, J., & Dyer, B. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of marketing managers' conflict-handling behaviors. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 50−66. Souder, W. E. (1977). Effecting of nominal and interacting group decision processes for integrating R&D and marketing. Management Science, 23(6), 595−605. Souder, W. E. (1981). Disharmony between R&D and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 10, 67−73. Wells, W. (2001). The perils of n = 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 494−498. White, C. J., Varadarajan, P. R., & Dacin, P. A. (2003). Market situation interpretation and response: The role of cognitive style, organizational culture, and information use. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 63−79. Workman, J. (1993). Marketing's limited role in new product development in one computer systems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(4), 405−421.

S.M. Keaveney / Industrial Marketing Management 37 (2008) 653–663

Sue Keaveney Ph.D. is Professor of Marketing at the Business School of the University of Colorado Denver. Her research has been published in the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Retailing, the Journal of Business Research, Marketing Management, Psychology and Marketing, International Marketing Review, Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Business and Psychology, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Journal of Marketing Higher Education, the Journal of Marketing Channels, and the Journal of Promotion Management. Prof. Keaveney specializes in Executive Education and has received numerous awards for teaching and research, including the Award for Outstanding Commitment to Students, Outstanding Faculty Member, Dean's Scholar Award, the CU Denver Teacher of the Year, and Outstanding Teacher of the College of Business. She would like to express sincere thanks to Research Assistants Brian Day, Maggie Crowdes, and Danalee Miller for their help with the content analysis and to the editors and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.

663