Tra il dire e il fare c'è di mezzo il mare(Between saying and doing is the ocean)Brian D Smith

In marketing strategy, the espoused-enacted

gap if a significant management issue

“What gets measured gets done”

misses the point

Prior literature suggests two

explanations of non-implementation

Our work examines those explanations

It suggests much extant management

practice may be counter-productive

Marketing strategy content : A sustained pattern of resource allocation and activity decisions

regarding which customers to serve and what value to offer them (Smith, 2003, after Drucker,

Mintzberg, Porter and Others)

Strategy implementation: ‘the communication, interpretation,

adoption and enactmentof strategic plans’

(Noble, 1999, p. 57).

‘the communication, interpretation, adoption and enactment of

resource-allocation and activity decisions, at whatever point in the

strategy process theymay occur’

(Smith, 2009)

Strategy Process: ‘few, if any,

strategies can be purely deliberate and few can be purely emergent’

(Mintzberg, 1994,p. 25).

Espoused marketing strategyThat sustained pattern of resource

allocation and activity decisions regarding which customers to serve and

what value to offer them, whenever those decisions are made, that is

espoused by those responsible for such decisions.

Enacted marketing strategyThat sustained pattern of resource

allocation and activity regarding customers to serve and what value to

offer them that is enacted by the organisation

Non-Discretionary activity

(That which can be measured and rewarded or

punished)

Discretionary activity

(That which can’t be measured and

rewarded or punished)

Non-Discretionary activity

(A large and mostly normative literature about “performance

management” that pays little attention to

discretionary activity)

Discretionary activity (A smaller and mostly

descriptive literature that focuses on causes,

variation and higher level outcomes)

“Managers are assumed to derive personal satisfaction from

allocating resources of their firm to other than productivity increasing expenses” – Migue and

Belanger, 1974

Varies with organisation

(Hambrick and Finkelstein,

1987)

Varies with role

(Carpenter and Golden,

1997)

Varies with industry

(Hambrick and Abrahamson,

1995)

Varies with individual

(Morrison & Phelps 1989)

Conversations about the

motivations and commitment of

individuals

Conversations about intra-

organisational conflict

Why is there an espoused-enacted gap in discretionary marketing strategy?

• Self-administered online questionnaire• Pilot then roll-out• Marketing teams in medium to large pharma

and medtech companies• > 5 respondents/company “involved in the

execution of decisions about which customers to serve and what to offer them”

• Large questionnaire, typical multiple-item approach, standard methodological techniques

• 53 usable firms, n= 391 • PLS analysis at population and firm level

Population level findings

• Degree of Marketing strategy implementation is weak– 2.0 to 3.5 (mean 2.5)/5

• Balance of positive/negative conflict is weakly positive– 2 to 4 (mean 3.0)/5

• Individual commitment to marketing strategy is weak– 1.5 to 3 (mean 2.0)

Firm level findings

+0.42

+0.32

+0.39

+0.34

+0.11

+0.81 +0.62

Is Practitioner orthodoxy normative view flawed?

• Create a cross-functional team & make collaborative decisions so that we have “buy-in”

• Get commitment by creating a strong team spirit

• Set up “internal customer” relationships to ensure delivery

• Set stretching goals with “SMART” personal goals and use “carrots and sticks” to ensure implementation

• Manage through a matrix structure

Is the normative view flawed?• Create a cross-functional team & make collaborative decisions

so that we have “buy-in”– No evidence that CDM gains buy-in, but some that it diffuses ownership

• Get commitment by creating a strong team spirit– Seems to promote group over organisational commitment

• Set up “internal customer” relationships to ensure delivery– Seems to set up status imbalances, encourage social competition and promote normative over

affective commitment

• Set stretching goals with “SMART” personal goals and use “carrots and sticks” to ensure implementation – Seems to reduce expectancy and instrumentality motivational factors and promotes

continuance commitment over affective commitment

• Manage through a matrix structure– Seems to promote conflict over resources, role ambiguity and other antecedents of

intraorganisational conflict

Is the normative view flawed?1. Create a cross-functional

team & make collaborative decisions so that we have “buy-in”

2. Get commitment by creating a strong team spirit

3. Set up “internal customer” relationships to ensure delivery

4. Set stretching goals with “SMART” personal goals and use “carrots and sticks” to ensure implementation

5. Manage through a matrix structure

1. Encourage “consult and decide” and “taking the D”

2. Encourage organisational, not group, salience

3. Set up interdependencies

4. Encourage self-setting of goals

5. Give XF team leaders authority