Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

The impact of digital tools on sales-marketing interactions and perceptions

Wim Biemans
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Creating superior value for customers requires an effective sales-marketing interface (SMI), but unfortunately
Sales-marketing interface these two departments are not always aligned, which drains resources and reduces profitability. The COVID-19
Digitalization pandemic forced B2B firms to move their sales-marketing interactions online, using digital tools such as Teams,
Digital tools
Zoom, and WhatsApp, which dramatically changed how the two departments interact and perceive each other
COVID-19
Hybrid work
and their relationship. The study presented in this paper, based on interviews with 86 informants in 56 firms,
explores the impact of digital tools on sales-marketing interactions and perceptions. The findings contribute to
the SMI literature by untangling the positive and negative effects of digital tools, emphasizing the role of
informal interactions, exploring the impact of digital tools on the power balance between marketing and sales,
and suggesting several variables that may moderate the impact of digital tools on the SMI.

1. Introduction
A firm’s marketing and sales departments perform complementary
activities to create superior value for customers (Guenzi & Troilo, 2007;
Matthyssens & Johnston, 2006; Rouziès et al., 2005). Ideally, both de­
partments coordinate their activities effectively (Cespedes, 1993, 1994),
but many business-to-business (B2B) firms fail to create an effective
sales-marketing interface (SMI) (Beverland, Steel, & Dapiran, 2006;
Biemans, Makovec Brenčič, & Malshe, 2010; Homburg, Jensen, &
Krohmer, 2008; Kotler, Rackham, & Krishnaswamy, 2006; Strahle,
Spiro, & Acito, 1996), which diminishes the firm’s ability to create su­
perior customer value, drains resources, and reduces profitability
(Treetree, 2021). The SMI literature extensively documents the under­
lying causes of conflict and lack of trust (Beverland et al., 2006; Dawes &
Massey, 2005; Malshe, Johnson, & Viio, 2017; Massey & Dawes, 2007a,
2007b), and the effects of dysfunctional SMIs on performance (Homburg
et al., 2008; Homburg & Jensen, 2007; Rouziès & Hulland, 2014). Poor
sales-marketing alignment at a typical $1 billion B2B firm has been
estimated to cost $14 million in sales and marketing expenses and $100
million in lost revenue opportunity (Gerard, 2013), and the total costs of
sales-marketing misalignment have recently been estimated at more
than a trillion dollars per year (MacDonald, 2021).
In a recent synthesis of the SMI literature, Biemans, Malshe, and
Johnson (2022) conclude that SMI effectiveness is determined by how
sales and marketing personnel interact and perceive each other. They
also suggest that the use of digital tools may impact these sales-
marketing interactions and perceptions. Although firms have used
digital tools to a varying extent, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many
firms to adopt digital tools or exponentially increase their use and move
sales-marketing interactions online (Ewald, 2022; Haapio, Mero, Kar­
jaluoto, & Shaikh, 2021; Wiederhold, 2020). In the words of Microsoft’s
CEO, Satya Nadella, “We saw two years of digital transformation in two
months” (Zoltners, Sinha, Lorimer, & Morgan, 2020). Recent research
findings about the impact of digital tools on the SMI are fragmented,
incomplete and inconclusive. For example, Hauer, Naumann, and Harte
(2021) found that digitalization enhances collaboration between sales
and marketing, whereas Yang et al. (2022) found that the 2020 shift to
remote work weakened collaboration between departments. Both
studies are silent on the impact on sales-marketing communication, in­
formation exchange, trust, and cohesion. Biemans et al. (2022, p. 332)
call for future research aimed at “untangling [the] positive and negative
effects of digital tools on sales-marketing interactions and perceptions”.
This paper is a response to this literature gap and call for research
into the impact of digital tools on the SMI. It explores how digital tools
impact the relationship between sales and marketing and addresses
three research questions:
1. What are the key benefits of using digital tools within the SMI?
2. What are potential drawbacks of using digital tools within the SMI?
3. Which variables moderate the impact of digital tools on the SMI?
This paper provides four contributions to the extant SMI literature.
First, it provides insight into the potential positive and negative effects
of digital tools on sales-marketing interactions (communication,

E-mail address: w.g.biemans@rug.nl.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.10.015
Received 25 January 2023; Received in revised form 12 September 2023; Accepted 23 October 2023
Available online 30 October 2023
0019-8501/© 2023 The Author. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
W. Biemans
information sharing) and perceptions (trust, cohesion). Second, it shows
how these effects may differ across digital tools and highlights the role of
informal sales-marketing interactions. Third, the findings show that
digital tools may also impact the balance of power between sales and
marketing. Fourth, it proposes that the impact of digital tools on sales-
marketing interactions may be moderated by firm characteristics and
national culture. Thus, this paper contributes to the literature by
providing novel insights about how digital tools may impact the SMI
dynamic. The findings further our understanding of the changing nature
of the SMI and helps firms to enhance SMI effectiveness in a post-
pandemic world (Foss, 2021; Sen, Deb, & Kumar, 2021).
2. Literature background
2.1. The sales-marketing interface
Early studies emphasize the need for coordination between sales and
marketing (Cespedes, 1993, 1994) and are followed by studies exploring
sales-marketing collaboration (Dewsnap & Jobber, 2009; Le Meunier-
FitzHugh & Piercy, 2007b, 2009), integration (Dewsnap & Jobber,
2009; Rouziès et al., 2005), or alignment (Kotler et al., 2006; Peterson,
Gordon, & Palghat, 2015). These studies typically explore the anteced­
ents of sales-marketing alignment (Arnett & Wittmann, 2014; Dewsnap
& Jobber, 2000; Hulland, Nenkov, & Barclay, 2012; Massey & Dawes,
2007a), or its effects (Homburg et al., 2008; Le Meunier-FitzHugh,
Massey, & Piercy, 2011).
Previous research shows that the SMI is often disharmonious (Kotler
et al., 2006; Strahle et al., 1996) because of thought-world differences –
different activities, objectives and time horizons – between the two
departments (Beverland et al., 2006). For example, Homburg and Jensen
(2007) found that sales tends to use a short-term orientation toward
individual customers, whereas marketing typically uses a long-term
orientation toward products. Firms use different structural arrange­
ments for their sales and marketing functions, which affect the nature
and effectiveness of the SMI (Homburg et al., 2008; Vaid, Ahearne, &
Krause, 2020; Workman Jr., Homburg, & Gruner, 1998). Scholars
identified SMI configurations that vary from undefined to aligned, and
suggest that they represent successive evolutionary stages (Biemans
Fig. 1. Sales-marketing interactions and perceptions.
396
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
et al., 2010; Biemans & Makovec Brenčič, 2007; Kotler et al., 2006).
Based on an extensive literature review, Biemans et al. (2022) sug­
gest that the SMI focuses on: (1) the interactions between sales and
marketing personnel, and (2) their perceptions of each other and their
relationship. Sales-marketing interactions refer to behaviors exhibited
by the two departments toward each other over time, such as commu­
nication (Dawes & Massey, 2005; Massey & Dawes, 2007b), knowledge
sharing (Arnett, Wittmann, & Hansen, 2021; Homburg et al., 2008), and
influence tactics (Dawes & Massey, 2006). Sales-marketing perceptions
reflect how both departments view each other, and their relationship, at
a specific point in time. Several studies lump these perceptions together
in the construct ‘SMI effectiveness’ (Dawes & Massey, 2006; Dewsnap &
Jobber, 2002; Hulland et al., 2012). Others focus on specific elements of
SMI effectiveness, such as trust (Malshe & Al-Khatib, 2017; Massey &
Dawes, 2007a), conflict (Dawes & Massey, 2005; Enyinda, Enyinda,
Mbah, & Ogbuehi, 2021; Malshe, Johnson and Viio, 2017), personal
rapport (Johnson & Boeing, 2016; Malshe & Biemans, 2014), cohesion
(Malshe, 2011; Malshe, Friend, Al-Khatib, Al-Habib and Al-Torkistani,
2017; Rouziès & Hulland, 2014), and credibility (Malshe, 2010;
Malshe & Sohi, 2009).
SMI scholars have studied the relationships between sales-marketing
interactions and perceptions (Fig. 1). Many studies investigate how in­
teractions influence perceptions. For example, communication is found
to build trust and reduce conflict (Dawes & Massey, 2005; Guenzi &
Troilo, 2006; Le Meunier-FitzHugh, Cometto, & Johnson, 2021; Massey
& Dawes, 2007b). The idea of interactions influencing perceptions is
similar to the concept of flow and stock variables used in accounting and
economics (Clower, 1968; Harrison, 1980), with flow variables (trans­
actions during a specific period, such as sales, income, costs) accumu­
lating to build stock variables (assets at a specific point in time, such as
financial assets, capital, inventory). Other studies acknowledge that
perceptions may also influence interactions (Arnett & Wittmann, 2014;
Dawes & Massey, 2006; Keszey & Biemans, 2017); for example, trust
encourages communication and knowledge sharing between the two
departments. Finally, several studies explore relationships between
different interaction elements – for example, communication frequency
improves communication quality and communication quality impacts
knowledge exchange (Arnett & Wittmann, 2014; Le Meunier-FitzHugh
W. Biemans
et al., 2021) – or between different aspects of perceptions – for example,
trust reduces conflict and conflict reduces cohesion (Arnett et al., 2021;
Dewsnap & Jobber, 2002).
2.2. Impact of digital tools on the SMI
Over the years, many B2B firms invested in digital tools – such as
sales enablement tools, websites, apps and social media – to restructure
their marketing processes (Kannan & Li, 2017; Kumar, Sharma, Vatav­
wala, & Kumar, 2020) and improve their communication with cus­
tomers and business partners (Bharadwaj & Shipley, 2020; Enyinda,
Opute, Fadahunsi, & Mbah, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic forced
firms to speed up their digitalization processes and move sales-
marketing interactions online (Ewald, 2022). This resulted in an expo­
nential growth in the use of digital tools such as video call platforms
(Teams, Zoom, Webex, FaceTime), social media platforms (LinkedIn,
Facebook), instant messaging apps (WhatsApp, iMessage, Jabber), on­
line workspaces (Google Workspace, Slack, Trello), intranets and email
to improve sales-marketing alignment (Daly, 2020). The impact of this
drastic increase in the use of digital tools on the SMI is unclear.
Empirical studies on this topic are very limited, but several literature
streams offer relevant insights.
First, the SMI literature itself suggests that digital tools will have a
positive impact on the SMI. Digital tools’ ease of use and ubiquity are
expected to increase communication frequency and bidirectionality,
which have been found to reduce conflict and improve SMI effectiveness
(Dawes & Massey, 2005; Massey & Dawes, 2007b). In addition, based on
exploratory interviews in six organizations, Hauer et al. (2021) found
that digitalization makes the SMI more transparent and enhances sales-
marketing collaboration by softening the borders between the two
departments.
Second, the literature about remote work and virtual teams dem­
onstrates that the effect of virtualness on team performance is ambig­
uous (De Guinea, Webster, & Staples, 2012; Marlow, Lacerenza, & Salas,
2017; Morgan, Paucar-Caceres, & Wright, 2014). Virtual teams have
been found to increase flexibility and productivity, eliminate time and
space barriers, and enhance cross-functional interaction (Ale Ebrahim,
Ahmed, & Taha, 2009; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Townsend,
DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998). But digital tools may also distract,
reduce trust and diminish workplace performance (Aguenza & Som,
2012; Munene & Nyaribo, 2013; Standaert, Muylle, & Basu, 2016;
Wiederhold, 2020). In the absence of visual cues, sales and marketing
employees may find it hard to interpret spontaneous, informal digital
conversations (Schlenkrich & Upfold, 2009) and integrate them with
insights from traditional, formal interactions (Duxbury & Neufeld, 1999;
Wilson, Santana, & Paharia, 2018). Similarly, several recent studies
about the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic show mixed effects of digi­
talization and remote work on collaboration in organizations (Lal,
Dwivedi, & Haag, 2021; Maurer, Bach, & Oertel, 2022). Remote
collaboration can be effective when team members learn different
communication patterns (Waizenegger, McKenna, Cai, & Bendz, 2020),
but the 2020 shift to remote work has also been found to result in more
static and siloed collaboration between departments (Yang et al., 2022).
Recent findings suggest that the impact of digital tools varies across
digital tools and performance metrics; for example, communication
through media with low social presence (like email and social media)
enhances efficiency, but not cohesion (Nguyen et al., 2022).
Third, several theoretical frameworks suggest concepts and insights
that may inform our understanding of the impact of digital tools on the
SMI. Resource dependence theory (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009;
Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978) suggests that, given the high level of inter­
dependence between marketing and sales (Guenzi & Troilo, 2007;
Matthyssens & Johnston, 2006; Rouziès et al., 2005), control over digital
tools may impact the balance of power between both functions (Casciaro
& Piskorski, 2005). Social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell,
2005; Emerson, 1976), the interaction approach (Håkansson, 1982;
397
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
Ruekert & Walker, 1987) and network theory (Burt, 2000; Kleinbaum &
Tushman, 2008; Lin, 1999) underscore the importance of social inter­
action and social bonds between actors. Digital tools may impact social
interaction between marketing and sales and the social capital (Rouziès
& Hulland, 2014) needed to develop and maintain informal networks
(Crampton, Hodge, & Mishra, 1998; Kleinbaum & Tushman, 2008;
Krackhardt & Hanson, 1993) that increase trust (Enyinda et al., 2021;
Massey & Dawes, 2007a) and cohesion (Carlson, Carlson, Hunter,
Vaughn, & George, 2013; Keszey & Biemans, 2016; Le Meunier-
FitzHugh et al., 2021; Rouziès & Hulland, 2014). Indeed, a study of
SMIs in Brazil found that marketing and sales make extensive use of
WhatsApp, which promotes not only faster communication, but also
stimulates informal communication (Johnson & Boeing, 2016). Such
informal communication among remote co-workers has been found to
help alleviate feelings of isolation and contribute to cohesion, commit­
ment, job satisfaction and well-being (Fay, 2011; Koch & Denner, 2022;
Methot, Rosado-Solomon, Downes, & Gabriel, 2021). In contrast, a
recent study suggests that remote work leads to less informal commu­
nication, which is needed “to fulfill social, coordination and information
functions” (Viererbl, Denner, & Koch, 2022, p. 43).
To conclude, firms are increasingly digitalizing their processes and
the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated this digitalization to unprece­
dented levels. The resulting sharp increase in the use of digital tools
affects SMIs, but it is not clear how they impact sales-marketing in­
teractions and perceptions. This is the first study to explore the impact of
digital tools on how sales and marketing personnel interact with each
other and how they perceive the quality of their relationship. The in­
sights gained from this study further our understanding of the SMI and
help firms to adapt their SMIs to the new post-pandemic reality.
3. Research method
Considering the lack of knowledge and ambiguous findings about the
effects of digital tools on the SMI, and the objective to extend SMI
research in a new direction, this paper explores the phenomenon using a
discovery-oriented approach, based on elements of grounded theory and
a theories-in-use approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Zeithaml et al.,
2020). This approach blends the use of in-depth interviews with the
extant literature to capture the complexity of the impact of digital tools
through the perspectives of marketing and sales personnel (Yadav,
2010), which helps uncover interesting observations and concepts that
arise from informants’ experiences and are not limited by predetermined
theories or frameworks (Zeithaml et al., 2020). According to Zeithaml
et al. (2020) such an approach involves “soliciting from study partici­
pants … the ideas they feel are important and how they are linked to one
another” (p. 34) and “is particularly valuable when scholars want to …
extend extant perspectives and address ambiguities, or guide future
empirical efforts” (p. 35).
Given that most studies about sales-marketing interactions and per­
ceptions are limited and quantitative in nature (Arnett & Wittmann,
2014; Dawes & Massey, 2005, 2006; Ernst, Hoyer, & Rübsaamen, 2010;
Le Meunier-FitzHugh & Piercy, 2007a; Massey & Dawes, 2007a, 2007b),
a qualitative approach to studying this phenomenon offers three clear
advantages. First, both quantitative and qualitative research approaches
play complementary roles in research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Since
the impact of digital tools on the SMI is a largely unexplored area, a
qualitative approach is useful to identify key variables and help un­
derstand the complex relationships between them. Second, the use of a
qualitative approach allows this study to build on and compare with
findings from previous research about sales-marketing interactions to
both deepen and widen our understanding of the phenomenon (Olsen,
2004). Third, a qualitative methodology allows a researcher to study the
phenomenon in vivo and “achieve close access to reality” (Gummesson,
2003, p. 491).
W. Biemans
3.1. Data collection
To capture a wide range of experiences, a theoretical sampling
technique was used that includes informants that are expected to
maximize the discovery of variation between concepts (Creswell, 2007;
Gephart Jr, 2004; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The sample used in this study
shows diversity in terms of industries, firm size, and informant job titles.
A total of 86 informants in 56 companies from several European coun­
tries (The Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Hungary and
Greece) participated in the study. The companies operate in a range of
B2B markets, including agricultural machinery, metal products, elec­
trical equipment, pharmaceuticals, industrial packaging, and climate
control. All companies have separate marketing and sales departments
and use digital tools for internal communications. Following the
approach adopted by previous qualitative SMI studies (Biemans et al.,
2010; Guenzi & Troilo, 2007), the sample consists predominantly of
marketing and sales informants but includes several senior executives to
offer a broader perspective. For example, business unit managers and
managing directors were able to provide insights about how senior
management responded to the increasing use of digital tools and how
they tried to mitigate their potential negative effects, and digital trans­
formation executives provided information about the adoption of digital
tools by sales and marketing. The final sample consists of 45 marketing
professionals (marketing managers, brand managers, trade marketers),
34 sales professionals (sales directors, key account managers, global
sales managers), and 7 senior management informants (CEOs, general
managers, digital transformation coordinators). Informants have typi­
cally been in their current job for several years and are well versed with
the research topic.
Informants were recruited through cold calling, word of mouth, and
personal contacts. Initial contacts were asked for references to their
counterparts from marketing or sales in the organization or senior ex­
ecutives that might provide relevant insights. Although this study’s
objective was not to explore differences between marketing and sales
personnel in the same organization, whenever possible, referrals were
used to collect information from multiple informants in firms. Because of
COVID-19 restrictions, all interviews were conducted using video chat,
allowing the interviews to occur in more convenient conditions for the
informants which increased accessibility and flexibility (Janghorban,
Roudsari, & Taghipour, 2014; Lo Iacono, Symonds, & Brown, 2016;
Mirick & Wladkowski, 2019), and lasted between 40 and 80 min.
Following the interview protocol suggested by McCracken (1988), the
interviews started with a general explanation about the study, followed
by general informational questions that captured the background of the
companies, their products and the informants. This was followed by
general questions about the SMI, after which the interviews focused on
the use and impact of digital tools. The interviews used a conversational
style, allowing the informant to guide the discussion and reduce
interviewer-induced bias (McCracken, 1988), emphasizing depth over
breadth, and an openness to new issues and conflicting information
(Zeithaml et al., 2020). Informants were encouraged to illustrate their
observations with examples from their own experiences.
3.2. Data analysis
Consistent with the discovery-oriented, theories-in-use approach,
data collection and data analysis were tightly integrated to allow the
research process to evolve based on earlier findings (Eisenhardt, 1989;
Zeithaml et al., 2020). All interviews were recorded and transcribed,
resulting in about 95 h of audio recordings. The audio transcripts were
transferred to text, and then analyzed following established procedures
for data analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Using an inductive, iterative
approach the data were subjected to “rigorous comparative analysis that
successively moves from studying concrete realities to rendering a
conceptual understanding from these data” (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012,
p. 347), in which data were not forced into preconceived categories
398
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
(Glaser, 1978). The interview transcripts were first carefully examined
and remarks that informants indicated as critical to understanding the
impact of digital tools on the SMI were captured as in-vivo codes that
contain the actual language used by informants (Corbin & Strauss,
2014). To be included in the analysis, the ideas captures in the in-vivo
codes had to be (a) applicable to multiple contexts and (b) mentioned
by multiple informants (Ulaga & Reinartz, 2011). Next, axial coding was
used to establish connections between in-vivo codes and first-order
categories. The first-order categories were subsequently organized
under second-order themes that consistute the major building blocks of
our insights. Emerging themes were constantly refined based on subse­
quent interview data. Fig. 2 illustrates how the analysis moved from in-
vivo codes to first-order categories and second-order themes.
In analyzing the emergent findings, an active search for deviant cases
that are significantly different and might question the overall findings
did not identify any deviant cases. In addition, interpretations of the
findings were verified using member checks (Creswell, 2007; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985) by sharing findings with six randomly selected study par­
ticipants and ask them to offer their views on our interpretations of the
findings. Because the sample was drawn from diverse organizational
contexts, to ensure refutability the informants’ responses were analyzed
for consistency across industries (Zeithaml et al., 2020) and no signifi­
cant differences were found. Finally, consistency across job functions
was also analyzed. No major differences were found, except for a dif­
ference between marketing and sales personnel regarding their respec­
tive roles (see section 4.3.5).
4. Findings
This study’s key findings concern (1) the use of digital tools by sales
and marketing employees, (2) benefits of using digital tools, (3) draw­
backs of digital tools, and (4) factors that moderate the impact of digital
tools on the SMI. The findings are discussed below and illustrated with
representative quotes from informants.
4.1. Use of digital tools
The companies participating in this study use a range of digital tools
to improve the collaboration (Google Drive, SharePoint, Trello),
communication (e-mail, WhatsApp, Viber, Zoom, Skype) or both
(Teams, Workplace) between sales and marketing. Online meeting
platforms, such as Teams and Zoom, are usually introduced by top
management, for instance as a corporate-wide solution to remote work
during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, tools like WhatsApp and
Viber are typically initiated by the sales and marketing departments to
facilitate spontaneous, immediate and informal communications both
within the department and between them. Chat services are popular
because people tend to respond to chat messages very quickly, whereas
emails are often ignored. Indeed, several informants noted that the
increased use of digital tools resulted in less reliance on email because
other digital tools are considered more user friendly and less intrusive.
“Calling via Teams is really ideal. Previously I would wait for an
email back an hour later and then you often get half an answer. Now I
notice that I call via Teams much more often and then I am done in
two minutes. That is of course strange because without Teams I could
also reach everyone by phone, but I did that much less often… In
addition, everyone is more often in front of their laptop.” [Sales
manager, medium-sized firm].
WhatsApp is especially popular; many firms use multiple WhatsApp
groups, such as one for sales, one for marketing, and one for sales and
marketing. Many informants emphasized that, when the COVID-19
pandemic resulted in lockdowns, they were quick to use WhatsApp in
the workplace because everybody already used it for their private in­
teractions with family and friends. Similarly, the COVID-19 pandemic
also vastly accelerated the adoption of videoconferencing platforms like
W. Biemans
Fig. 2. Coding scheme for communication efficiency and information transparency.
Teams and Zoom, even firms that already used videoconferencing before
the pandemic reported a significant increase in the use of such plat­
forms. As one managing director reports: “The pandemic made us realize
that our foreign subsidiaries are just as nearby as our local colleagues”.
However, this opinion was not shared by all informants; some in­
formants in large firms, that already used digital tools extensively,
report that communication has not changed very much because of the
pandemic.
Informants typically experience both benefits and drawbacks of
using digital tools, causing one informant to characterize them as a
“double-edged sword”. On the one hand, digital interactions enrich
interdepartmental communication and facilitate collaboration between
sales and marketing. At the same time, informants report several
drawbacks of using digital tools.
4.2. Benefits of digital tools
All informants experienced significant benefits when using digital
tools in interactions between sales and marketing personnel. The most
commonly reported benefits are improved communication efficiency,
information transparency, collaboration, and trust and cohesion.
4.2.1. Communication efficiency
Informants were quick to point out that the use of digital tools im­
proves sales-marketing communication efficiency. The 24/7 access to
digital tools makes it easier to reach out to colleagues and increases the
speed of communication. Because online meetings do not require people
to be present in the same location, they can be scheduled on short notice
and used to quickly discuss and resolve urgent matters. This positive
impact on communication efficiency is summed up in the following
quote by a sales manager.
“The positive aspect of using digital tools is that we interact much
more often between departments. Because communication and
399
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
coordination is much faster, information can be shared directly. You
reach all the colleagues it concerns, which stimulates greater inter­
action and exchange between departments. This is because reactions
to the shared information in turn generate feedback, which stimu­
lates interdepartmental exchange.” [Sales manager, small firm].
Several informants prefer the use of chat messages above using the
phone, because chat services allow you to quickly see whether or not
someone is available and start a conversation by simply clicking a but­
ton. The asynchronicity of such digital tools makes it very easy to send a
message, without stopping what you are doing, and allows colleagues to
respond whenever they have time, making the communication less
intrusive and further increasing the efficiency of communication.
Indeed, some informants indicated that they even prefer digital
communication when they, and the person they want to communicate
with, are actually in the office.
Digital tools also contribute to communication efficiency because
they reduce mistakes. For example, a respondent at a pharmaceutical
company explains how, when targeting doctors with information about
new products, marketing used to lose at least 25% of doctors’ email
addresses because of their illegible handwriting. Providing salespeople
with iPads, on which doctors can directly input their email addresses,
which are then shared with marketing, solved this problem.
Many informants emphasize that some digital tools facilitate richer
communication. For example, videoconferencing tools allow partici­
pants not only to talk to each other, but also to share images, documents,
hyperlinks or screens to enhance the ongoing discussion. Sharing is no
longer limited to preprinted handouts and people engage more inten­
sively with the most up-to-date content, which facilitates information
processing. In addition, chat messages encourage people to send more
spontaneous messages, often including emojis, which result in more
informal communication.
“One way or another I find the chat more fun. It just feels more
informal. On Teams you can easily add a nice gif and you just don’t
W. Biemans
do that via email. In the chat you also make a joke or a comment
faster, you just don’t do that so quickly in email. It is therefore simply
more informal and that helps in contact with colleagues.” [Marketing
manager, medium-sized firm]
Digital tools also make it easier to reach out to colleagues in other
locations, share information and ask for feedback on ideas. This is
relevant for firms with geographically dispersed marketing and sales
personnel, but also for firms using hybrid meetings, with some partici­
pants meeting face-to-face in the office and others attending the meeting
online.
“Because we are spread across six different regions in Germany and
you are always on the road as a sales representative, digital tools are
essential for us to have a continuous interaction with marketing.
Without these tools, we would communicate less frequently and the
quality of the exchange would suffer significantly.” [Sales manager,
large firm]
4.2.2. Information transparency
Digital communication can be recorded and documented, which
establishes a communication history that can be used to monitor
communication, document the flow of information exchange, and
retrieve earlier versions of documents or discussion threads. This im­
proves information transparancy, which helps to reduce mis­
understandings and discrepancies between sales and marketing, align
activities, and enhance interfunctional trust and mutual appreciation.
“Ever since we started to use digital tools for communication pur­
poses, the frequency of communication between departments has
increased. I am able to contact my colleagues any time when just a
quick alignment is needed… Thus, information is shared directly
with all the required colleagues, even from other departments. I
believe the interaction and information transparency became greater
between sales and marketing personnel ever since we started to rely
predominantly on digital communication tools.” [Marketing man­
ager, large firm]
When online meetings are recorded, voice-searchable recordings can
be efficiently disseminated to all colleagues, rather than only those that
attended the meeting. This is especially useful for keeping salespeople
informed, who often are unable to attend meetings because they are
visiting customers and can now access the recording at their own con­
venience at a later date.
“When we have an important meeting, we always record the session,
which enables our colleagues who are not physically present to keep
track of the exchanged information. It is wonderful that it can be
accessed at any time, so that colleagues from other departments can
use it as well.” [Sales manager, large firm]
4.2.3. Collaboration
Informants were quick to point out that digital tools also improve
sales-marketing collaboration by structuring, documenting, and moni­
toring workflows. Sales and marketing employees can work simulta­
neously on the same files, retrieve older versions of documents, interact
with colleagues accessing the same project file, and send messages,
annotations, or updates. For example, firms use Trello to organize group
meetings, chat, share files, and comment on tasks and assignments. The
combination of more frequent communication, more transparent infor­
mation and enhanced information access serve to improve coordination
and collaboration between sales and marketing.
“We have started to use task management tools to better coordinate
the tasks within our team. With the help of the tool, we are informed
about what marketing is working on. We also document our tasks
within the tool to keep them notified, which helps to have a good
overview of the current goals and tasks… This way of coordinating
400
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
tasks also enabled us to collaborate more effectively with each other.
I also sense an increased trust ever since we started the documen­
tation of tasks.” [Sales representative, small firm]
Digital information sharing facilitates a continuous exchange of in­
formation without constraints that is readily accessible to all relevant
employees, which speeds up decision making, improves interdepart­
mental collaboration, and enhances key business processes like inno­
vation. Especially chat messages facilitate fast exchange of the latest
information about products and project updates. Salespeople send
feedback to marketing about products or to quickly ask questions when
clarification is needed in their interaction with customers, thus
improving sales-marketing alignment which benefits customers.
“Our marketing department has access to a lot of information
through social media tools and regularly comes across innovative
market trends. In addition, as a sales manager, I am in constant
contact with our customers online and receive important feedback on
ideas and requests, which I can quickly communicate and enter into
our database. Via Microsoft Teams, we often exchange information
with each other on all discoveries in sales and marketing, and can
combine the information in a meaningful way to create innovative
products.” [Sales manager, small firm]
Some marketing informants mentioned that when the COVID-19
lockdown forced salespeople to move their customer visits online, it
allowed marketing managers to join these online conversations and get
information directly from customers, instead of indirectly through pe­
riodic reports from the sales department. This gave marketing direct
access to individual customers and allowed them to be part of the con­
versation with customers.
4.2.4. Trust and cohesion
Several informants stated that more frequent and more transparent
communication between sales and marketing reduces friction and dis­
agreements between the two departments. All employees have access to
the latest information and can contribute to ongoing discussions, inde­
pendent of time or geographical location. When sales and marketing
employees use digital tools to collaborate, the 24/7 discussion docu­
ments each individual contribution, which encourages participation and
makes them feel that their opinions are valued by their counterpart.
More frequent, spontaneous online meetings reduce the barriers and
differences between sales and marketing employees. This allows them to
supplement regular, scheduled, task-oriented meetings with more
spontaneous, informal interactions, which increases goal alignment,
interfunctional trust, and group cohesion. Especially chat groups that
include both sales and marketing personnel help to build informal ties
between the two departments; because chat messages are perceived as
less formal they are less deliberate and often embellished with emojis
and personal remarks.
“The trust we have toward marketing has definitely increased with
the use of digital tools. Due to their use, we share more knowledge
with each other, so everything is more clear and as a result less
problems arise. Moreover, we are more driven to achieve the firm’s
goals together because we see ourselves as one team with them.”
[Sales manager, medium-sized firm]
4.3. Drawbacks of digital tools
Apart from the various benefits of using digital tools, informants also
experienced several drawbacks related to a lack of contextual informa­
tion richness, increased stress, reduced cohesion, implementation
problems, and sales’ fears about its changing role.
4.3.1. Contextual information richness
The most frequently mentioned drawback of digital tools is a lack of
W. Biemans
contextual information richness, because participants miss the
emotional connection achieved through facial expressions, gestures and
body language. Especially with a language barrier between participants,
facial expressions and gestures are needed to compensate for a lack of
language skills. The ubiquitous videoconferences are often perceived as
one-sided, especially when participants turn off their cameras. Several
informants assume (all too often correctly) that their colleagues perform
other tasks during online meetings. One marketing manager admitted
doing so himself; his company uses Skype for internal communication,
but nobody uses the camera because this allows them to use the time
more productively by multitasking. Another informant noted that
several colleagues hesitate to ask questions and contribute to online
meetings, suggesting a perceived barrier to online interactions. As a
result, most informants emphasize that they consider digital communi­
cation to be less effective than and complementary to face-to-face con­
versations, not a substitute.
“Face-to-face generally is better in my view. The one thing I really
miss, particularly with the language barrier, is picking up the per­
son’s body language. You know, when you speak over Skype, you
don’t know whether the persons fully understand it. If you’re there,
talking to their face, you can see by their expression whether they
understood what you were trying to tell them.” [Sales manager, large
firm]
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many firms to replace face-to-face
conversations with online meetings and chats. But even during lock­
downs many informants often felt the need for in-person meetings and
went to great lengths to arrange them.
“I often received requests from small teams for permission to meet in
person in the office because they really needed to discuss things face-
to-face. And I have taken many walks in the woods with colleagues to
meet face-to-face, which clearly shows how important that is.”
[Marketing manager, large firm]
The problem of reduced information richness is further exacerbated
by the fact that online meetings tend to become more task oriented, with
pre-announced topics discussed one after another without much room
for emerging topics or side discussions. This prevents sales and mar­
keting personnel from enriching each other’s insights beyond the pre­
determined topics. Moreover, when firms implement hybrid meetings,
online participants can only contribute during the actual meeting and
miss out on the informal interactions taking place right before and after
meetings that are often crucial for the ongoing discussion and decision
making. This could result in significant differences between on-site and
remote colleagues. Since salespeople tend to be less on-site because they
are often visiting customers, this could impede the effectiveness of the
SMI. Related to this, several informants worry that with the sharp
decrease in informal water cooler conversations many opportunities for
serendipitous discovery and collaboration are lost.
“What I find extremely difficult is when we now head in the direction
of hybrid meetings, when half of the people are sitting in one room
who probably already have an intensive exchange before and after
the meeting. Usually, what is said before and after the meeting is
actually an essential part of the meeting. The person who is con­
nected via Skype no longer takes part in this.” [Marketing manager,
large firm]
4.3.2. Stress
A second, frequently mentioned drawback of digital tools is the
increased stress that people experience because the frequency and speed
of communication increase, and digital tools are 24/7 accessible. The
boundary between work and private life becomes increasingly blurred,
especially when chat services are used to communicate with both col­
leagues and family and friends. Stress caused by frequent messages and
requests is especially prevalent in interdepartmental communications
401
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
between sales and marketing, because people are less aware of the work
schedules of their counterparts. The need to quickly learn to use new
digital tools, caused by pandemic lockdowns, further added to perceived
stress levels.
“The fact that digital tools make it very easy for colleagues to reach
you all the time has created an expectation among many that you
have to answer immediately at all times. There are situations in
which marketing tries to reach me via several channels and demands
a direct answer, which creates a lot of stress for me. At that point, I
usually don’t feel like dealing with the matter at all. It’s different
with colleagues who know me well. They know about my busy
schedule and are considerate of this situation.” [Sales manager, large
firm]
Digital interactions also leave sales and marketing personnel with
less time and opportunities to decompress. A marketing manager ob­
serves that before the pandemic she used to regularly work from home,
to have some dedicated time to work uninterrupted on contracts or
customer dossiers. But when videoconferencing tools were widely
adopted because of pandemic restrictions, this dedicated time was gone
because suddenly everybody was working from home and her colleagues
felt that they could contact her at any time. She also stated that she
missed having to travel to customers, because she was accustomed to
using the travel time to prepare for the meetings. In addition, several
informants report that videoconferences are often scheduled back to
back, without any time in between to decompress, have a coffee break or
use the restroom.
“Online meetings tend to be planned back to back. When I was in the
office, I found myself hurrying from one hybrid meeting to the next.
And if the next meeting was at the other side of the building I would
be hurrying along using Microsoft Teams on my phone to access the
next meeting so I would not miss anything.” [Managing director,
large firm]
Information overload, caused by more frequent communication
through multiple channels, further contributes to stress. The 24/7 access
to all relevant documents, including previous versions and annotations,
was perceived by several informants as oversharing. Some informants
also find it difficult to monitor all digital communications and filter out
less relevant information to focus on what really matters, especially
when the firm uses a wide variety of digital tools. For example, in­
formants experience problems keeping track of where which informa­
tion is stored, which impedes the efficient flow of information between
sales and marketing, and weakens interdepartmental collaboration. One
informant stated that his company solved the problem by discarding
most digital tools and relying on Teams for both online meetings and
more informal chat messages.
“We have often found that we need to pay attention to the fact that
the information we gather on market trends needs to be better
evaluated. Marketing is constantly supplying new information and so
are we in sales. This creates a literal flood of information from which
we do not always draw the right conclusions.” [Sales manager, small
firm]
4.3.3. Cohesion
While digital tools tend to have a positive impact on cohesion be­
tween sales and marketing, several informants also mentioned some
negative effects on cohesion. For example, when sales-marketing in­
teractions become predominantly digital, as was the case during COVID-
19 lockdowns, employees may feel more isolated and less connected to
the team. A marketing manager in a large firm lost quite a few team
members during the lockdown because the forced working-from-home
policy and communication through digital channels made them feel
less connected to both the team and the company. As a result, they were
more prone to leave their job and start working for another company.
W. Biemans Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407

When a significant part of her team consisted of new hires she used an
extensive onboarding process to prevent a negative effect on group
cohesion. Similarly, several managers went to great lengths to work
around existing pandemic restrictions and allow employees to meet in
person.
This potential negative impact of digital tools on group cohesion is
also illustrated by comments from informants expressing their worry
that digital tools result in communication losing its human touch, which
reduces interpersonal bonds between employees and potentially drives
them apart. Several senior managers addressed this problem by
encouraging informal communication, the use of humor and a playful
atmosphere during lockdown periods when everybody was adjusting to
working from home. For example, in one firm the senior management
team started the habit of posting weekly video updates from their homes
that included personal, humorous elements.
“When you do remote communication there is less intimacy; you
won’t talk with your colleague about other topics besides work. For
example, you won’t ask him ‘How is your family doing?’ because the
communication is shorter and more to the point. The professional
relationship is amplified with digital tools. However, we are losing
the interpersonal relationship, even the way you look at your
colleague is different in person compared to online.” [Business unit
manager, large company]
conversation or at least to listen in for as long as it is interesting. While
marketers appreciate the value of direct interaction with individual
customers, salespeople often feel possessive of their customer relation­
ships and are afraid to lose control over them. Because marketers can
easily use digital tools to interact with customers, some sales informants
raised concerns about the importance of their department in the com­
pany, and fear that in the near future they might be replaced by digital
tools or lose territory and power to marketing. While other informants
are more optimistic, several acknowledge that digital tools will signifi­
cantly change the roles of sales and marketing, as well as the power
balance between both departments.
“In the sales department, there are often concerns about whether the
new tool will cost them their job and make them replaceable… In my
opinion, this is not possible because completely different tasks are
necessary. Fear of something new always brings resistance and thus
also impedes the cooperation.” [Marketing manager, large firm]
Fig. 3 summarizes the major benefits and drawbacks of digital tools,
together with strategies to deal with them that were suggested by in­
formants. These strategies are aimed at improving digital communica­
tions, reducing stress, design an attractive work climate and make sure
that the use of digital tools does not automatically result in interactions
becoming too task-oriented and losing their human touch.

4.4. Moderating factors

4.3.4. Implementation
Informants experienced several implementation problems as they
The interview transcripts suggest several factors that may moderate
adopted digital tools or started to use them more frequently. For
the impact of digital tools on the SMI. For example, some informants
example, new software was not always rolled out properly, sales and
argue that older employees are more likely to resist the use of digital
marketing employees were unable to work with new technology or did
tools, while others maintain that an employee’s mentality is more
not have access to the same tools, or the lack of clear rules about data
relevant than age and that resistance to digital tools disappears when
storage prevented the creation of a uniform database. In addition,
employees receive training and experience first hand the benefits of
several informants experienced technical problems, such as slow
using them.
internet connections and overloaded corporate networks, which caused
meetings to be cancelled or required cameras to be turned off during “When iPads were given to salespeople, who traveled for work pur­
online meetings. poses, so they would have quick access to digital platforms in order
to communicate with marketing about feedback, product stocks and
“Sometimes I also have the feeling that it is quite a clutter, that you
other requests, they were skeptical in the beginning. They thought
no longer know how things were shared. Something was sent via
that this means of communication would take more time and make
email, some other thing was put on SharePoint. There is still no
their lives difficult. However, when they learned how to use it they
unified policy, and ultimately everyone works and communicates
very much appreciated its possibilities for communication.” [Digital
differently.” [Marketing manager, large firm]
transformation coordinator, large firm]
Now that the world has moved on from pandemic restrictions, many
In addition, many informants suggest that firm size may be a relevant
companies struggle with what the new normal will be like. Having
factor. Small firms have fewer employees, who are typically located in
experienced the benefits of working from home, many sales and mar­
the same building, resulting in short communication lines and close
keting employees are hesitant to return to the office fulltime and prefer
personal ties. Marketing and sales personnel frequently meet informally
to work several days per week from home. As a result, many firms adopt
during coffee breaks and are used to resolving issues face-to-face. In
a hybrid approach to work, with some employees working from the
contrast, large firms have larger sales and marketing departments, often
office and others from home, but this new flexibility comes with several
with geographically dispersed employees, which reduces tie strength
challenges. For example, as the number of online meetings reduces,
and cohesion between the two departments. While this suggests that
interactions between geographically dispersed employees may deterio­
large firms tend to benefit more from the use of digital tools, the inter­
rate. In addition, firms struggle to implement hybrid work effectively.
view transcripts suggest that the underlying driver of the impact of
For example, some firms require all sales or marketing employees to be
digital tools is not firm size, but the initial quality of the SMI. Firms with
in the office on specific days for in-person meetings, but many em­
an effective SMI manage to incorporate digital tools in their existing
ployees feel that these can be conducted more efficiently from home.
interactions and use digital tools to further improve the SMI. Firms with
Informants disagree about the extent to which people are unwilling to
a dysfunctional SMI often struggle with the new reality and fail to enjoy
relinquish the benefits from working from home or are social creatures
the potential benefits of digital tools, while suffering from their draw­
that crave interaction with others and will start attending meetings in
backs, which further deteriorates their SMI.
person again.
“I feel that the distance between marketing and sales is increasing.
4.3.5. Changing role of sales Because when you are marketing you need to come into the pubs and
Marketing and sales informants had mostly very similar experiences visit clients. Because of COVID-19 they did not do this for a long
using digital tools. An important exception is that digital tools allow time, so they lost their feeling with the customer. We, as sales, notice
marketers to encroach on sales’ territory, by directly interacting with this because marketing comes up with ideas that do not fit well in our
individual customers. For example, when sales conversations with cus­ view… There are so many digital tools nowadays that can help you,
tomers take place online, it is easy for marketers to join the sales but they cost a lot of money and sometimes are just nice to have. We

402
W. Biemans
Fig. 3. Major benefits and drawbacks of digital tools.
should filter these out and look at which digital tools we should
have.” [Sales manager, large firm]
Finally, the cultural context may also affect the impact of digital
tools. For example, even though many informants emphasize that for
important issues they prefer face-to-face communication above digital
communication, a marketing manager in a large firm explains that the
Chinese may be an exception. Because the Chinese are more used to
digital communication they consider the absence of non-verbal cues
(such as gestures and facial expressions) less problematic.
“[I]n China, people are very pragmatic, they always have been. [In
China] you often get calls from robots. We [western people]
wouldn’t pick up or talk to them at all. So I take this example that
Chinese people are highly pragmatic and are less bothered by it
directly than we are. So that’s not really a big problem.“[Marketing
manager, large firm]
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical contributions
This paper makes four key contributions to the extant literature
about SMIs. First, it provides insight into how digital tools may impact
sales-marketing interactions and perceptions, which extends the extant
literature in three major ways. (1) While other researchers have dis­
cussed both positive and negative effects of digital tools on employees
(Kamal, 2020; Waizenegger et al., 2020), this is the first study to identify
all major effects of digital tools in the context of an interdepartmental
interface. Thus, it extends previous research about the impact of work­
ing from home during the COVID-19 pandemic on individuals, for
example, on their mental health and productivity (Awada, Lucas,
Becerik-Gerber, & Roll, 2021; Yu, Park, & Hyun, 2021), to the context of
interdepartmental relationships. (2) Whereas existing studies on the
403
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
impact of remote work on organizational performance tend to focus on a
single attribute, such as team collaboration (Waizenegger et al., 2020;
Yang et al., 2022), this study explores the impact of digital tools on both
interactions and perceptions of marketing and sales personnel. For
example, digital tools are found to increase communication efficiency,
but at the cost of reducing informal interactions, which are detrimental
to cohesion and problem-solving in the SMI. (3) By untangling the
myriad effects of digital tools, this study captures the complex impact of
digital tools on the SMI. For example, informants reported both positive
and negative effects of digital tools on cohesion, but a closer look at the
interview transcripts shows that digital tools initially improve commu­
nication and information transparency, thus creating a positive impact
on cognitive trust and cohesion, while too much reliance on digital
communication (as forced during lockdowns) reduces the human touch
that is vital for affective trust and cohesion. This is consistent with both
the meta-theoretic too-much-of-a-good-thing effect (Pierce & Aguinis,
2013), which suggests a non-linear relationship between digital
communication and cohesion (Maltz & Kohli, 1996), and the extant
literature that states that both cohesion and trust consist of cognitive and
affective dimensions (Carron & Brawley, 2000; Webber, 2008).
Second, whereas previous SMI research focuses on the frequency and
quality of communication (Arnett et al., 2021; Dawes & Massey, 2005;
Le Meunier-FitzHugh et al., 2021; Massey & Dawes, 2007b), this study
suggests that digital tools may change the nature of sales-marketing
interactions. Many informants reported that online meetings tend to
become more task-oriented, structured around and focused on pre­
determined topics for discussion, leaving less room for personal,
informal communication. At the same time, marketing and sales
personnel adopted instant messaging platforms (especially WhatsApp)
for quick, ad hoc, informal interactions (Kassim et al., 2020). Informants
acknowledge the different effects of formal versus informal interactions,
which confirms the suggestion by Rouziès et al. (2005, p. 118) that “the
two types of communications have different properties and, hence, are
W. Biemans
likely to play different roles in realizing sales-marketing integration”.
Informants also confirmed the notion that informal interactions are
important for cohesion, spontaneous collaboration and serendipitous
discovery (Kraut, Fussell, Brennan, & Siegel, 2002; Kudyba, 2020;
Kwayu, Abubakre, & Lal, 2021; Lal et al., 2021; Trevor & Holweg,
2022). Nevertheless, although some informants pointed out that
videoconferencing platforms like Teams and Zoom can also be used for
instant messaging, different digital tools tend to be used for formal and
informal communication. Interpretation of the interview transcripts
suggests that this may result in less effective informal communication,
with informal chat messages being limited to brief personal remarks and
informal communication being all but absent in online meetings. Indeed,
as pointed out by informants, effective informal sales-marketing in­
teractions often occur right before and after in-person meetings or in the
form of spontaneous water cooler conversations and may be less effec­
tive in digital interactions because these often lack non-verbal cues such
as tone, warmth, and attentiveness (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Schlenkrich
& Upfold, 2009). In the new normal of hybrid work, many firms struggle
to encourage informal interactions between sales and marketing em­
ployees. As a McKinsey study concluded, “social connectivity … is what
enables us to collaborate productively …[and]… it will be critical for
companies to recreate this connectivity regardless of where employees
are located” (Dahik et al., 2020, p. 4).
Third, the increasing use of digital tools by sales and marketing
personnel not only impacts their interactions and perceptions, but also
affects their roles and relative power (Dawes & Massey, 2006). During
the last two decades sales organizations have become more strategic
(Cuevas, 2018; Storbacka, Ryals, Davies, & Nenonen, 2009), and sales
enablement processes resulted in sales encroaching on activities that are
traditionally carried out by marketing (Homburg, Vomberg, Enke, &
Grimm, 2015; Keszey & Biemans, 2016; Peterson & Dover, 2021). This
study’s findings suggest that the use of digital tools may counter this
trend. Several marketing informants stated that digital tools allow them
to join online sales conversations. Consistent with the tenets of resource
dependence theory (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Pfeffer & Salancik,
1978), this gives marketers access to resources that are traditionally
controlled by sales (that is, relationships with individual customers) and
allows marketing to encroach on sales’ domain, thus affecting the bal­
ance of power between both departments.
Fourth, this study’s findings suggest that the impact of digital tools
on sales-marketing interactions and perceptions may vary across
different contexts. For example, the transcripts intimate that the extent
to which firms are able to reap the benefits of digital tools depends on
the initial quality of their SMI. Firms with effective SMIs almost effort­
lessly implement digital tools and make them an essential part of their
communication toolbox, whereas firms with dysfunctional SMIs often
find that the use of digital tools drives their sales and marketing de­
partments further apart (distrust breeds resistance) (Daly, 2020). A
second difference is related to culture. SMI scholars propose that sales-
marketing interactions and perceptions may be influenced by national
culture (Biemans et al., 2010, 2022). This study’s findings suggest that
cultural factors may have a positive impact on the use of digital tools and
diminish their negative impact on cohesion, which is consistent with the
literature about the impact of culture on communication (Hwa-Froelich
& Vigil, 2004) and cultural differences in response to digital tools used
for remote brainstorming (Wang, Fussell, & Setlock, 2009).
5.2. Management implications
The findings from this study have several managerial implications.
The complex impact of digital tools on sales-marketing interactions and
perceptions, and the differential impact of different digital tools, suggest
that managers must match digital tools with communication objectives
and context. As posited by media richness and media synchronicity
theory, asynchronous channels are better suited for conveying infor­
mation, while synchronous channels are best suited to communicating
404
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
complex information and its meaning (Daft & Lengel, 1986; Dennis,
Fuller, & Valacich, 2008). For example, because of its ease-of-use,
pervasiveness and familiarity, chat services are very effective for
asking quick questions, and its fast, spontaneous nature enhances sales-
marketing cohesion. In contrast, videoconferencing is especially effec­
tive to quickly discuss issues and keep all relevant employees informed,
either live or by making recordings available. Several informants indi­
cated that face-to-face meetings are preferred for sensitive issues or
decisions about important, complex issues. Nevertheless, firms that
want to better control the digital tools used and protect their employees
from information overload and digital confusion may decide to focus on
Zoom or Teams for both online meetings and chat messages.
Firms must be aware of the importance of informal interactions for
spontaneous discovery and serendipitous collaboration (Kraut et al.,
2002; Kudyba, 2020; Lal et al., 2021). Many informants stated that
online meetings do not require much planning, can be organized
quickly, and enhance information transparency, but also tend to become
more task-oriented. Managers must compensate for the resulting
decrease in spontaneous, informal interactions and actively initiate and
promote other opportunities for informal interaction. As summarized by
Geoff Parker, “When meetings are stacked back-to-back, serendipitous
moments evaporate. To counter that phenomenon, managers should
leave room for chatter” (Baskin, 2023). Several informants organized
informal get togethers and games during the pandemic to encourage
informal interactions. Now that the pandemic is on the decline, firms
should not drop these informal sessions, but emphasize and legitimize
them to ensure that hybrid work does not eliminate the human aspect of
sales-marketing interactions, which might diminish cohesion and orga­
nizational loyalty (Trevor & Holweg, 2022).
Firms also need to deal with increased stress caused by digital tools.
Back-to-back online meetings, 24/7 accessibility to digital communi­
cation (including previous versions of documents and annotations), and
a constant stream of chat messages contribute to stress, impaired mental
health, and blurred boundaries between work and private life (Awada
et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021). Senior leadership needs to be aware of
these problems and implement solutions geared to maintaining their
employees’ mental health. For example, they need to brief managers on
potential mental health implications, create a culture that normalizes
mental health challenges, communicate support, prioritize self-care ac­
tivities that encourage mental and social wellbeing, model healthy be­
haviors, and help employees to maintain or regain a healthy work-life
balance (Johnson et al., 2020).
The pandemic significantly changed how sales and marketing
communicate, but also how B2B firms communicate with their cus­
tomers (Bages-Amat, Harrison, Spillecke, & Stanley, 2020). This em­
phasizes that sales and marketing need to become more aligned than
ever, but also puts strain on their relationship. In the new digital envi­
ronment, sales feels more dependent on marketing and the power dy­
namic has changed (Treetree, 2021). Salespeople are losing their
exclusive access to customers and some sales informants even expressed
their fear of becoming redundant. Senior leadership needs to address
these fears by redesigning and communicating the complementary roles
of sales and marketing in the new digital context and implementing the
communication and information-sharing processes that are required to
align sales and marketing in their efforts to serve customers.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This study used exploratory interviews with sales and marketing
informants from companies in multiple industries and several countries.
While this captures a broad range of experiences, persuading informants
to participate in times of COVID-19 proved to be challenging. As a result,
it was not possible to interview both marketing and sales informants in
all companies. While the findings present the major themes that
emerged from a great variety of experiences of marketing and sales
employees with digital tools in times of the pandemic, several tentative
W. Biemans
findings must be empirically validated. In addition, the key findings
from this study suggest several promising directions for future research.
Informants disagree about the importance of auditive and visual
cues, which reflects an ongoing discussion in the extant literature.
Whereas some scholars conclude that plain text messages engender less
trust than audio and video messages (Babutsidze, Hanaki, & Zylbersz­
tejn, 2021), others maintain that social information processing theory
suggests that people will adapt to the absence or limited availability of
non-verbal cues and use whatever cues are available (McGloin, Coletti,
Hamlin, & Denes, 2022). Future research might study the relevance and
impact of different types of cues in digital communication on trust and
cohesion, as well as the impact of culture on how sales and marketing
employees use and experience digital tools (Hwa-Froelich & Vigil, 2004;
Wang et al., 2009).
Future scholars may also further investigate the differential impact of
formal versus informal communication (Rouziès et al., 2005), and
combine this with differences between synchronous versus asynchro­
nous communication, or planned versus spontaneous communication
(Den Otter & Emmitt, 2007). Such research would contribute to our
understanding of how various types of communication are different
from and related to each other, and how they impact interdepartmental
trust, cohesion and conflict.
After the pandemic many firms embrace hybrid work, which raises
questions about how sales and marketing will continue using digital
tools to interact and how the drawbacks of digital interactions can be
mitigated. Scholars could investigate how firms implement the ‘new
normal’, which digital tools will be kept and which discarded, how they
manage to integrate digital channels within their internal communica­
tion mix, how to create digital trust, and how to manage the tensions
associated with hybrid work (Trevor & Holweg, 2022).
Although the last two decades witnessed sales organizations
becoming more strategic and encroaching on marketing’s domain
(Keszey & Biemans, 2016; Piercy, 2010), this study’s findings suggest
that a shift in the other direction may occur. Digital tools give marketers
direct access to customers, implying that salespeople lose control over
one of their key resources: the firm’s relationships with individual cus­
tomers. Future research might study the changing roles and re­
sponsibilities of sales and marketing, their impact on the SMI, and the
implications for marketers and salespeople. As Singh et al. (2019, p. 17)
conclude: “marketing people are becoming sellers and salespeople are
becoming online marketers, increasing the necessity for sales and mar­
keting to collaborate and to develop new sales/marketing skills”.
6. Conclusion
This exploratory study aimed to answer the central question “How
does the use of digital tools affect sales-marketing interactions and
perceptions?” The findings show that digital tools have both positive
and negative effects, which may differ across firms and organizational
contexts. Nevertheless, the key conclusion appears to be that firms with
well-functioning SMIs stand to benefit the most from using digital tools
for their sales-marketing interactions. The findings from this exploratory
study contribute to our understanding of SMIs and may guide firms in
reshaping their SMIs in a post-pandemic world.
Data availability
The data that has been used is confidential.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Tamas Gal, Christian Gollan, Jonno Grevink,
Rafaela Kalogeorgou, Aron Klaverboer, Luca Lais, and Jeffrey Oude
Engberink for their participation in this research project.
405
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
References
Aguenza, B. B., & Som, A. P. M. (2012). A conceptual analysis of social networking and
its impact on employee productivity. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 1(2),
48–52.
Ale Ebrahim, N., Ahmed, S., & Taha, Z. (2009). Virtual teams: A literature review.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(3), 2653–2669.
Arnett, D. B., & Wittmann, C. M. (2014). Improving marketing success: The role of tacit
knowledge exchange between sales and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 67
(3), 324–331.
Arnett, D. B., Wittmann, C. M., & Hansen, J. D. (2021). A process model of tacit
knowledge transfer between sales and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management,
93, 259–269.
Awada, M., Lucas, G., Becerik-Gerber, B., & Roll, S. (2021). Working from home during
the COVID-19 pandemic: Impact on office worker productivity and work experience.
Work, 69(4), 1171–1189.
Babutsidze, Z., Hanaki, N., & Zylbersztejn, A. (2021). Nonverbal content and trust: An
experiment on digital communication. Economic Inquiry, 59(4), 1–16.
Bages-Amat, A., Harrison, L., Spillecke, D., & Stanley, J. (2020). These eight charts show
how COVID-19 has changed B2B sales forever. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/medi
a/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Marketing%20and%20Sales/Our%20Insights/
These%20eight%20charts%20show%20how%20COVID%2019%20has%20changed
%20B2B%20sales%20forever/These-eight-charts-show-how-COVID-19-has-chan
ged-B2B-sales-forever.pdf.
Baskin, K. (2023). Hybrid work is here to stay. Here are 7 ways to manage your
workforce. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/hybrid-work-here-to-sta
y-here-are-7-ways-to-manage-your-workforce?utm_source=pocket_saves.
Beverland, M., Steel, M., & Dapiran, G. P. (2006). Cultural frames that drive sales and
marketing apart: An exploratory study. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21
(6), 386–394.
Bharadwaj, N., & Shipley, G. M. (2020). Salesperson communication effectiveness in a
digital sales interaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 106–112.
Biemans, W., Malshe, A., & Johnson, J. S. (2022). The sales-marketing interface: A
systematic literature review and directions for future research. Industrial Marketing
Management, 102, 324–337.
Biemans, W. G., & Makovec Brenčič, M. (2007). Designing the marketing-sales interface
in B2B firms. European Journal of Marketing, 41(3), 257–273.
Biemans, W. G., Makovec Brenčič, M., & Malshe, A. (2010). Marketing-sales interface
configurations in B2B firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2), 183–194.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 22, 345–423.
Carlson, J. R., Carlson, D. S., Hunter, E. M., Vaughn, R. L., & George, J. F. (2013). Virtual
team effectiveness: Investigating the moderating role of experience with computer-
mediated communication on the impact of team cohesion and openness. Journal of
Organizational and End User Computing, 25(2), 1–18.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.
Small Group Research, 31(1), 89–106.
Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and
constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.
Cespedes, F. V. (1993). Co-ordinating sales and marketing in consumer goods firms.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(2), 37–55.
Cespedes, F. V. (1994). Industrial marketing: Managing new requirements. Sloan
Management Review, 35(3), 45–60.
Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory
analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.),
The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2nd ed., pp.
347–365). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Clower, R. W. (1968). Stock-flow analysis. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
15, 273–277.
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crampton, S. M., Hodge, J. W., & Mishra, J. M. (1998). The informal communication
network: Factors influencing grapevine activity. Public Personnel Management, 27(4),
569–584.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900.
Cuevas, J. M. (2018). The transformation of professional selling: Implications for leading
the modern sales organization. Industrial Marketing Management, 69, 198–208.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Dahik, A., Lovich, D., Kreafle, C., Bailey, A., Kilmann, J., Kennedy, D., Roongta, P.,
Schuler, F., Tomlin, L., & Wenstrup, J. (2020). What 12,000 employees have to say
about the future of remote work. Boston Consulting Group. http://www.g20ys.org/
upload/auto/7139c0b4e3d35d31fe4c92c7347aec3422b64164.pdf.
Daly, D. (2020). How digital disruption is shaping sales and marketing alignment. https
://www.linkedin.com/business/sales/blog/sales-and-marketing/how-digital-dis
ruption-is-shaping-sales-and-marketing-alignment.
Dawes, P. L., & Massey, G. R. (2005). Antecedents of conflict in marketing’s cross-
functional relationship with sales. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11),
1327–1344.
Dawes, P. L., & Massey, G. R. (2006). A study of relationship effectiveness between
marketing and sales managers in business markets. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 21(6), 346–360.
W. Biemans
De Guinea, A. O., Webster, J., & Staples, D. S. (2012). A meta-analysis of the
consequences of virtualness on team functioning. Information & Management, 49(6),
301–308.
Den Otter, A., & Emmitt, S. (2007). Exploring effectiveness of team communication:
Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams.
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 14(5), 408–419.
Dennis, A. R., Fuller, R. M., & Valacich, J. S. (2008). Media, tasks, and communication
processes: A theory of media synchronicity. MIS Quarterly, 32(3), 575–600.
Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2000). The sales-marketing interface in consumer packaged-
goods companies: A conceptual framework. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 20(2), 109–119.
Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2002). A social psychological model of relations between
marketing and sales. European Journal of Marketing, 36(7/8), 874–894.
Dewsnap, B., & Jobber, D. (2009). An exploratory study of sales-marketing integrative
devices. European Journal of Marketing, 43(7/8), 985–1007.
Duxbury, L., & Neufeld, D. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the impacts of
telecommuting on intra-organizational communication. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 16(1), 1–28.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
Enyinda, C. I., Enyinda, I. E., Mbah, C. H., & Ogbuehi, A. O. (2021). Managing marketing-
sales-service conflict in a B2B multinational firm. Thunderbird International Business
Review, 63(6), 719–733.
Enyinda, C. I., Opute, A. P., Fadahunsi, A., & Mbah, C. H. (2021). Marketing-sales-service
interface and social media marketing influence on B2B sales process. Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, 36(6), 990–1009.
Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Rübsaamen, C. (2010). Sales, marketing, and research-and-
development cooperation across new product development stages: Implications for
success. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 80–92.
Ewald, F. (2022). Forcing factor: Impact of Covid-19 on sales and marketing alignment.
https://www.marketone.com/articles/forcing-factor-impact-covid-19-sales-market
ing-alignment.
Fay, M. J. (2011). Informal communication of co-workers: A thematic analysis of
messages. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal, 6(3), 212–229.
Foss, N. J. (2021). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on firms’ organizational
designs. Journal of Management Studies, 58(1), 270–274.
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2004). Qualitative research and the academy of management journal.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.
Gerard, M. (2013). IDC’s sales enablement overview: Guidance for 2013 international
data corporation. https://www.slideshare.net/MichaelGerard1/2013-sales-ena
blement-strategy-by-idc-sales-and-cmo-advisory-services.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national
diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Guenzi, P., & Troilo, G. (2006). Developing marketing capabilities for customer value
creation through marketing-sales integration. Industrial Marketing Management, 35
(8), 974–988.
Guenzi, P., & Troilo, G. (2007). The joint contribution of marketing and sales to the
creation of superior customer value. Journal of Business Research, 60(2), 98–107.
Gummesson, E. (2003). All research is interpretive! Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 18(6/7), 482–492.
Haapio, H., Mero, J., Karjaluoto, H., & Shaikh, A. A. (2021). Implications of the COVID-
19 pandemic on market orientation in retail banking. Journal of Financial Services
Marketing, 26(4), 205–214.
Håkansson, H. (Ed.). (1982). International marketing and purchasing: An interaction
approach. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Harrison, G. W. (1980). The stock-flow distinction: A suggested interpretation. Journal of
Macroeconomics, 2(2), 111–128.
Hauer, G., Naumann, N., & Harte, P. (2021). Digital transformation challenges successful
enterprises; an exploration of the collaboration of marketing and sales department in
German organizations. Innovation & Management Review, 18(2), 164–174.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A
review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: Which
differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 124–142.
Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: A
taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.
Homburg, C., Vomberg, A., Enke, M., & Grimm, P. H. (2015). The loss of the marketing
department’s influence: Is it really happening? And why worry? Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 1–13.
Hulland, J., Nenkov, G., & Barclay, D. (2012). Perceived marketing-sales relationship
effectiveness: A matter of justice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3),
450–467.
Hwa-Froelich, D. A., & Vigil, D. C. (2004). Three aspects of cultural influence on
communication: A literature review. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(3),
107–118.
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014). Skype interviewing: The new
generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 9(1), 24152.
Johnson, A., Dey, S., Nguyen, H., Groth, M., Joyce, S., Tan, L., … Harvey, S. B. (2020).
A review and agenda for examining how technology-driven changes at work will
impact workplace mental health and employee well-being. Australian Journal of
Management, 45(3), 402–424.
406
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
Johnson, J. S., & Boeing, R. (2016). A união faz a força (there is strength in unity):
Understanding the sales-marketing interface in Brasil. Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, 36(2), 190–205.
Kamal, M. M. (2020). The triple-edged sword of COVID-19: Understanding the use of
digital technologies and the impact of productive, disruptive, and destructive nature
of the pandemic. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 310–317.
Kannan, P. K., & Li, H. (2017). Digital marketing: A framework, review and research
agenda. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 22–45.
Kassim, N. H., Noor, N. M., Kasuma, J., Saleh, J., Dealwis, C., & Nurhisham, M. A. (2020).
Sustaining job performance through technology acceptance with usage of whatsapp
mobile application. International Journal of Service Management and Sustainability, 5
(1), 123–148.
Keszey, T., & Biemans, W. (2016). Sales-marketing encroachment effects on innovation.
Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3698–3706.
Keszey, T., & Biemans, W. (2017). Trust in marketing’s use of information from sales: The
moderating role of power. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(2), 258–273.
Kleinbaum, A. M., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Managing corporate social networks.
Harvard Business Review, 86(7), 8–14.
Koch, T., & Denner, N. (2022). Informal communication in organizations: Work time
wasted at the water-cooler or crucial exchange among co-workers? Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 27(3), 494–508.
Kotler, P., Rackham, N., & Krishnaswamy, S. (2006). Ending the war between sales and
marketing. Harvard Business Review, 84(7), 68–78.
Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 71
(4), 104–111.
Kraut, R. E., Fussell, S. R., Brennan, S. E., & Siegel, J. (2002). Understanding effects of
proximity on collaboration: Implications for technologies to support remote
collaborative work. Distributed Work, 137–162.
Kudyba, S. (2020). COVID-19 and the acceleration of digital transformation and the
future of work. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 284–287.
Kumar, B., Sharma, A., Vatavwala, S., & Kumar, P. (2020). Digital mediation in business-
to-business marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 85,
126–140.
Kwayu, S., Abubakre, M., & Lal, B. (2021). The influence of informal social media
practices on knowledge sharing and work processes within organizations.
International Journal of Information Management, 58, Article 102280.
Lal, B., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Haag, M. (2021). Working from home during Covid-19: Doing
and managing technology-enabled social interaction with colleagues at a distance.
Information Systems Frontiers, 1–18.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Cometto, T., & Johnson, J. (2021). Launching new global
products into subsidiary markets: The vital role of sales and marketing collaboration.
Thunderbird International Business Review, 63(4), 543–558.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., Massey, G. R., & Piercy, N. F. (2011). The impact of aligned
rewards and senior manager attitudes on conflict and collaboration between sales
and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1161–1171.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., & Piercy, N. F. (2007a). Does collaboration between sales and
marketing affect business performance? Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 27(3), 207–220.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., & Piercy, N. F. (2007b). Exploring collaboration between sales
and marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 41(7), 939–955.
Le Meunier-FitzHugh, K., & Piercy, N. F. (2009). Drivers of sales and marketing
collaboration in business-to-business selling organisations. Journal of Marketing
Management, 25(5), 611–633.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22, 28–51.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lo Iacono, V., Symonds, P., & Brown, D. H. (2016). Skype as a tool for qualitative
research interviews. Sociological Research Online, 21(2), 103–117.
MacDonald, S. (2021). How sales and marketing alignment increased new revenue by
34% (case study). https://www.superoffice.com/blog/sales-marketing-alignment/.
Malshe, A. (2010). How is marketers’ credibility construed within the sales-marketing
interface? Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 13–19.
Malshe, A. (2011). An exploration of key connections within sales-marketing interface.
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(1), 45–57.
Malshe, A., & Al-Khatib, J. A. (2017). A repertoire of marketers’ trust-building strategies
within the sales-marketing interface. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
37(3), 213–227.
Malshe, A., & Biemans, W. (2014). The role of sales in NPD: An investigation of the US
health-care industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 664–679.
Malshe, A., Friend, S. B., Al-Khatib, J., Al-Habib, M. I., & Al-Torkistani, H. M. (2017).
Strategic and operational alignment of sales-marketing interfaces: Dual paths within
an SME configuration. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 145–158.
Malshe, A., Johnson, J. S., & Viio, P. (2017). Understanding the sales-marketing interface
dysfunction experience in business-to-business firms: A matter of perspective.
Industrial Marketing Management, 63, 145–157.
Malshe, A., & Sohi, R. S. (2009). What makes strategy making across the sales-marketing
interface more successful? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4),
400–421.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional
boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A
conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27
(4), 575–589.
Massey, G. R., & Dawes, P. L. (2007a). Personal characteristics, trust, conflict, and
effectiveness in marketing/sales working relationships. European Journal of
Marketing, 41(9), 1117–1145.
W. Biemans
Massey, G. R., & Dawes, P. L. (2007b). The antecedents and consequence of functional
and dysfunctional conflict between marketing managers and sales managers.
Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1118–1129.
Matthyssens, P., & Johnston, W. J. (2006). Marketing and sales: Optimization of a
neglected relationship. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 21(6), 338–345.
Maurer, M., Bach, N., & Oertel, S. (2022). Forced to go virtual. Working-from-home
arrangements and their effect on team communication during COVID-19 lockdown.
German Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(3), 238–269.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
McGloin, R., Coletti, A., Hamlin, E., & Denes, A. (2022). Required to work from home:
Examining transitions to digital communication channels during the COVID-19
pandemic. Communication Research Reports, 39(1), 44–55.
Methot, J. R., Rosado-Solomon, E. H., Downes, P. E., & Gabriel, A. S. (2021). Office
chitchat as a social ritual: The uplifting yet distracting effects of daily small talk at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1445–1471.
Mirick, R. G., & Wladkowski, S. P. (2019). Skype in qualitative interviews: Participant
and researcher perspectives. The Qualitative Report, 24(12), 3061–3072.
Morgan, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Wright, G. (2014). Leading effective global virtual
teams: The consequences of methods of communication. Systemic Practice and Action
Research, 27, 607–624.
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: A
literature review. SN Applied Sciences, 2, 1–33.
Munene, A. G., & Nyaribo, Y. M. (2013). Effect of social media pertication in the
workplace on employee productivity. International Journal of Advances in
Management and Economics, 2(2), 141–150.
Nguyen, M. H., Gruber, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., Fuchs, J., & Hargittai, E. (2022).
Staying connected while physically apart: Digital communication when face-to-face
interactions are limited. New Media & Society, 24(9), 2046–2067.
Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods
can really be mixed. In M. Haralambos, & M. Holborn (Eds.), Vol. 20. Developments in
sociology (pp. 103–118). Ormskirk: Causeway Press.
Peterson, R. M., & Dover, H. F. (2021). Global perspectives of sales enablement:
Constituents, services, and goals. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 154–162.
Peterson, R. M., Gordon, G., & Palghat, V. K. (2015). When sales and marketing align:
Impact on performance. Journal of Selling, 15(1), 29–43.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management.
Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338.
Piercy, N. F. (2010). Evolution of strategic sales organizations in business-to-business
marketing. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(5), 349–359.
Rouziès, D., Anderson, E., Kohli, A. K., Michaels, R. E., Weitz, B. A., & Zoltners, A. A.
(2005). Sales and marketing integration: A proposed framework. Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 25(2), 113–122.
Rouziès, D., & Hulland, J. (2014). Does marketing and sales integration always pay off?
Evidence from a social capital perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 42(5), 511–527.
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.
Schlenkrich, L., & Upfold, C. (2009). A guideline for virtual team managers: The key to
effective social interaction and communication. Electronic Journal of Information
Systems Evaluation, 12(1), 109–118.
Sen, P., Deb, P., & Kumar, N. (2021). The challenges of work from home for
organizational design. California Management Review, 31 July https://cmr.berkeley.
edu/2021/07/the-challenges-of-work-from-home-for-organizational-design/.
Singh, J., Flaherty, K., Sohi, R. S., Deeter-Schmelz, D., Habel, J., Le Meunier-
FitzHugh, K., … Onyemah, V. (2019). Sales profession and professionals in the age of
digitization and artificial intelligence technologies: Concepts, priorities, and
questions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 39(1), 2–22.
407
Industrial Marketing Management 115 (2023) 395–407
Standaert, W., Muylle, S., & Basu, A. (2016). An empirical study of the effectiveness of
telepresence as a business meeting mode. Information Technology and Management, 17
(4), 323–339.
Storbacka, K., Ryals, L., Davies, I. A., & Nenonen, S. (2009). The changing role of sales:
Viewing sales as a strategic, cross-functional process. European Journal of Marketing,
43(7), 890–906.
Strahle, W. M., Spiro, R. L., & Acito, F. (1996). Marketing and sales: Strategic alignment
and functional implementation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 16
(1), 1–20.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998). Virtual teams:
Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 12
(3), 17–29.
Treetree. (2021). The friction, fix and future for B2B marketing and sales teams. Curiosity
Report, 4. https://treetreeagency.com/the-curiosity-report-vol-4/.
Trevor, J., & Holweg, M. (2022). Managing the new tensions of hybrid work. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 64(2).
Ulaga, W., & Reinartz, W. J. (2011). Hybrid offerings: How manufacturing firms combine
goods and services successfully. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 5–23.
Vaid, S. S., Ahearne, M., & Krause, R. (2020). Joint marketing and sales appointment:
Uncertainty from intertwining of marketing and sales in one position. Industrial
Marketing Management, 85, 221–239.
Viererbl, B., Denner, N., & Koch, T. (2022). “You don’t meet anybody when walking from
the living room to the kitchen”: Informal communication during remote work.
Journal of Communication Management, 26(3), 331–348.
Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance perspective of
team collaboration and enforced working from home during COVID-19. European
Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 429–442.
Wang, H. C., Fussell, S. F., & Setlock, L. D. (2009). Cultural difference and adaptation of
communication styles in computer-mediated group brainstorming. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, April 7, Boston (pp.
669–678).
Webber, S. S. (2008). Development of cognitive and affective trust in teams: A
longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39(6), 746–769.
Wiederhold, B. K. (2020). Connecting through technology during the Coronavirus
disease 2019 pandemic: avoiding “Zoom fatigue”. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and
Social Networking, 23(7), 437–438.
Wilson, A., Santana, S., & Paharia, N. (2018). Give me something of yours: The downside
of digital (vs. physical) exchanges. In A. Gershoff, R. Kozinets, & T. White (Eds.), Vol.
46. NA advances in consumer research (pp. 28–32). Duluth (MN): Association for
Consumer Research.
Workman, J. P., Jr., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: An
integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3),
21–41.
Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge
development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19.
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N.,
Sherman, K., Hecht, B., & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on
collaboration among information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43–54.
Yu, J., Park, J., & Hyun, S. S. (2021). Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on employees’
work stress, well-being, mental health, organizational citizenship behavior, and
employee-customer identification. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 30
(5), 529–548.
Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020).
A theories-in-use approach to building marketing theory. Journal of Marketing, 84(1),
32–51.
Zoltners, A., Sinha, P., Lorimer, S. E., & Morgan, C. (2020). Now is the time to shake up
your sales processes. https://hbr.org/2020/10/now-is-the-time-to-shake-up-your-
sales-processes.