I had the privilege of being invited to lecture in strategic marketing at a business school in Shanghai, China. I spent six months in the country and it was fascinating to watch the struggle between the academics and the business development department. The academics said that the business development department should go out and sell the courses the academics had devised. The business development department argued that the academics should create courses that potential customers actually wanted. The academics blamed poor sales effort and ‘marketing’ techniques for the lack of sales of their courses. The business development people blamed the academics for not being focused on customers’ needs, just their own academic interests.

Although I wasn’t directly involved in this battle, it was fascinating to watch. It was also enlightening because I had seen the same fight in other contexts. I’ve seen similar conflicts in businesses, charities and voluntary groups in different countries. A charity I advised in England raised money from donors by promising things that couldn’t be delivered by other departments. Many commercial enterprises are plagued by a conflict between the sales people and their production departments. In these cases there is always a disconnection between the internal producers and the customer-facing staff. The tensions reveal the cracks below the surface of the business. These are the fault-lines that can result in earthquakes.

As a consultant I have seen many tensions within businesses – indeed outright conflict – between different departments in an enterprise. The ‘marketing department’ (often just a fancy title for the sales team) is often at odds with those responsible for producing the goods or services at the heart of the business.

One source of conflict is when the sales department is motivated only to achieve sales – at any cost. This results in conflict with the production department, which is left to pick up the pieces after the sales people have promised low prices and quick delivery, making impossible promises but nevertheless earning their bonuses. (By the way, I don’t blame the salespeople: I blame the management. Management is responsible for harmoniously aligning the different departments of the business.)

Another source of conflict is the other way around, when the sales department is blamed for lack of sales, when in fact the problem is that the product is not required, or simply not good enough. Or top management is focusing on the wrong target market. Again, I blame the management, who sometimes seem to take the view that anything can be sold if only the ‘marketing department’ works its magic.

Who’s right and who’s wrong?

In my view, such battles are the result of a failure of top management. Because it is the people at the top making strategic decisions that need to square the circle. Business strategy is all about harmonising what can feasibly be produced profitably and the exact markets to be served. This involves leadership and tough decisions about which products not to produce and which markets not to serve. Failure to devise a realistic strategy based on market needs and internal capability produces these conflicts. It creates inefficiency and wastes resources, as well as causing tension and dissatisfaction for employees.

This is essentially a problem of strategic marketing, not operational marketing. And who’s responsible for strategic marketing? Not the ‘marketing department’ but the Chief Executive Officer.

Key Points

Tensions and conflicts between the internal producers and the customer-facing salespeople happen in many businesses and organisations. The underlying reason is a lack of a strategy that harmoniously connects products and markets. This is the responsibility of the top management, even though the people who usually take the flak are at lower levels in the organisation.

What to do next