Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242284401
CITATIONS READS
275 1,241
3 authors:
Ove Jensen
WHU Otto Beisheim School of Management
21 PUBLICATIONS 1,001 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by John P. Workman on 28 March 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Christian Homburg, John P. Workman Jr., & Ove Jensen
A Configurational Perspective on
Key Account Management
Most firms struggle with the challenge of managing their key customer accounts. There is a significant gap between
the importance of this organizational design problem in practice and the research attention paid to it. Sound acad-
emic research on key account management (KAM) is limited and fragmented. Drawing on research on KAIVI and
team selling, the authors develop an integrative conceptualization of KAM and define key constructs in four areas:
(1) activities, (2) actors, (3) resources, and (4) approach formalization. Adopting a configurational perspective to
organizational research, the authors then use numerical taxonomy to empirically identify eight prototypical KAM
approaches on the basis of a cross-industry, cross-national study. The results show significant performance differ-
ences among the approaches. Overall, the article builds a bridge between marketing organization research and
relationship marketing research.
Journai of Marketing
38 / Journal of Marketing, April 2002 Vol. 66 (April 2002), 38-^0
Finally, given that conceptual work has suggested a variety Literature Review
of design options (Shapiro and Moriarty 1984a), there is lit-
tle empirical knowledge of which types of approaches to KAM Research
KAM occur in practice and how successful these are. We subsume under KAM all approaches to managing the
Given these gaps in knowledge about KAM, the overall most important customers that have been discussed under
objective of this article is to study the design of approaches such diverse terms as key account selling, national account
to KAM. More specifically, we seek to management, national account selling, strategic account
1, Derive the core design dimensions of KAM approaches management, major account management, and global
from the KAM literature and from related research areas to account management. "National account management" has
develop an integrative conceptualization of KAM, become a misnomer, as business with important customers
2, Identify the key constructs within these design dimensions increasingly spans country borders (CoUetti and Tubridy
and develop instruments for measuring these constructs, 1987). Although some research has focused on global
3, Identify prototypical approaches to KAM in practice on the accounts (Montgomery and Yip 2000; Yip and Madsen
basis of a cross-national, cross-industry taxonomy, and 1996), KAM appears to be the most accepted term in recent
4, Explore the outcomes of different KAM approaches. publications (Jolson 1997; McDonald, Millman, and Rogers
Given that taxonomies are less frequently developed than 1997; Pardo 1997; Sharma 1997) and is the most widely
conceptual models, a few comments on their value are in order. used term in Europe,'
As Hunt (1991, p, 176) has noted, classification schemata, Table 1 presents a summary of selected KAM research.
such as typologies or taxonomies, "play fundamental roles in We segment this research into articles focusing on (1) indi-
the development of a discipline since they are the primary vidual key account managers, (2) dyadic relationships
means for organizing phenomena into classes or groups that between suppliers and key accounts, and (3) the design of
are amenable to systematic investigation and theory develop- key account programs. Given our objective of understanding
ment." Given that the conceptual knowledge about the design the design of KAM approaches. Group 3 is most relevant to
of KAM is at an early stage and that our research endeavor is our article.
to expand its scope, a taxonomy is particularly useful in pro- Because Group 1 takes the individual key account man-
viding the field with new organization. By means ofthe taxon- ager as the unit of analysis, it is similar to personal selling
omy, we are studying the complex KAM phenomenon through research. Weeks and Stevens (1997) find considerable dis-
holistic patterns of multiple variables rather than isolated vari- satisfaction of key account managers with their current
ables and their bivariate relations. This research approach is training programs. Boles, Barksdale, and Johnson (1996)
consistent with the configurational perspective of organiza- identify behaviors required of key account salespeople in
tional analysis that has been gaining increasing attention order to build successful key account relationships.
(Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings 1993), The basic premise of the Group 2 is closely related to relationship marketing
configurational perspective is that "Organizational structures research. Several authors describe an evolutionary path of
and management systems are best understood in terms of over- key account relationships from lower to higher degrees of
all patterns rather than in terms of analyses of narrowly drawn involvement and collaboration (Lambe and Spekman 1997;
sets of organizational properties" (Meyer, Tsui, and Hinings McDonald, Millman, and Rogers 1997), Sharma (1997)
1993, p, 1181), Thus, the configurational perspective comple- finds that customers' preference for being served by key
ments the traditional contingency approach (Mahajan and account programs is particularly high when their buying
Churchill 1990), Two alternatives of identifying configurations process is long and complex, Sengupta, Krapfel, and
have been distinguished: Typologies represent classifications Pusateri (1997b) study switching costs in key account
based on a priori conceptual distinctions, whereas taxonomies relationships.
are empirically derived groupings (Hunt 1991; Rich t992; Group 3, which focuses on overall management of key
Sanchez 1993). Given our goal of identifying approaches to accounts, is the largest group, consistent with Pardo's (1999,
KAM in practice, we take a taxonomic approach. Hunt (1991) p. 286) conclusion that "Today, key account experts on both
notes that grouping phenomena through taxonomies as sides of the Atlantic agree on ... the problem of key account
opposed to typologies requires substantially less a priori management as being an organizational one." Although all
knowledge about which specific properties are likely to be studies in Group 3 deal with the design of key account pro-
powerful for classification, because taxonomic procedures are grams, none of these integrates the main aspects of key
better equipped to handle large numbers of properties account program design within one study.
Four main themes emerge from the literature on key
The article is organized as follows: We first summarize
account programs. First, key account programs encompass
the literature on KAM and evaluate contributions that the
special (interorganizational) activities for key accounts that
personal selling and sales management literature provide for
are not offered to average accounts. These special activities
KAM. On the basis of the literature review, we develop a
pertain to such areas as pricing, products, services, distribu-
multidimensional conceptualization of KAM and identify
tion, and information sharing (Cardozo, Shipp, and Roering
outcomes of KAM, We then describe a large-scale survey of
KAM approaches and develop the taxonomy. This is fol-
lowed by an exploration of how the different approaches It is worth noting that some companies use different labels to
perform. We conclude by discussing implications for theory denote various degrees of an account's importance within a key
and managerial practice. account program (Napolitano 1997; Shapiro and Moriarty 1982),
ta^
C CO
0) <0 T3
CO <2
n
g is
E cu
l 0
CO
c 0)
E
pend
CO - s
tl
and
O CO
c
I 12
CD
0}
o it O
CU
O.
CO
Q.
!c
T3 u>
CO c
CO
8 V C CO
CO C CO CO
2-2 g 2 .c
3 0.0 en CJ
3
^ JO 0
li
C <D
o
8
9.
CO
cu '-^
P S Q.
Q.
C
Q.CO ^ 73
I
W CO CD
< CU
^E O CO c u
5
O o H-~ CO , CJ 0 >
i CD O > . CO , 5 C3. CO
OJ
C
CJ CO
CO
8
c o
=
>
E m '5?
CL CO flS
^ -C ?
Q-E
rip CO
c 0c
cu
CD O o
5S O O o
! S2
o ,E DJ
CO CJ) O )
CD
C
c
has
c
has
r9 O i o
o ^ j CO CO 2t3 0
^ CO O CO CD
CO c S- CO 0 0
a> 3 3 3
3 LU ^
2i CO J Q . Q. 111 CO
w,
Ul
_J <
m
.is i2 CO
o
9" CO" i .
" - ^
( 0 CO
C
0)
3
U I o 5 o E :
~ CJ O
O CO ^ '
< 3
O
0)
(0 CO
T3 CO CD
, CO o, 9?
i 052
O
O
V.
CD
cl
CO
o
CO
J3 O
E CO
CO (0 i 0) W
0) c
3 p
3-i
O ,= E CJ O CO CO
CD CO o o 9 7 3 CO ? g.
CO Q) E c 0)
-^ E
0} O
.^ .c CO c 3 10 oO
CO
_ d. c o) 5 ic c <" -
1 ^ .2
> 0) 33
< o o
1 0}
_ CJ
E
UJ = "^
CO
CO
o
CC 5 Q. 0 ) CO Z JO
CD 3
It
,9J o
-
CO O CO
II
g '" CO
cu o> B !g CJ) " CO CO
c o
CO
^2 CO c^l
CM
CO
a>
CJ)
c
CJ) C3)
C31
t
C3)
f
CJ)
CJ)
C
CJ)
C3
8
o
C3> CM
o
CO
c
(O I
(0
CO f
(0 73
CO
73
C
O I 0) a>
ers
CO M CO
a> is TS
CO oc
'PI
OC
O) CO cu
2
o
col T3
CQ
E CO 0
c CO c o
.c a
Q
0 T3 0
I I
CO
ard
o '
m
J2
I 0 CO CO
I
I 0. CO CO
CO
b
40 / Joumal of Marketing, April 2002
T3
d)
CO 2 3
:ount
ructu
1
prod
CO
S! o 3 5)
CJ) 3 CO "o CD CO
unii
O
nee
lo d> c^
CD
I ro CO T3
o
TS o
'o CO
E
o
ro
8
CO
- tn .D
areas a;
c
ogram ii
ches an
the perf
success
tru cture of
i2 O
ement.
CO 2
c
CO
CO
Q.
"o
o
CJ
CO
CO
_c ro
If CO ^
c o
1 CO
itie in su(
idde
1
cups
man
li
CO CO
o CO CO
V C c
I o CO
B CO ro
CO y o O) i2
1 ro c 15 o
ratii
tion
the
>
t az "o CD
D) 88 Q.
ro o
c 'co o "
B
c CO
8 O CO > - CD
o
CO
CO
CO jO
1 O ro
3
o 0) C T3
nati
* 2
ious
ainir
jnts
sed
ro
for
CO
g
I 5" CO
CD
c
o CO
.o
CO
r .9
m
Q
o
8
C/)
> >
s.m 0 >
tisti
to
UJO
CD CO
o fc c _o "o CO
5 E
c E.id
I O
CD CO
. <D H B
in
.^ S B O 3 dl
Tn]c a>
3 o
o
ill EB
CO c
.s Io ^2 CO ^ CO 15 CO
Q.
D
I
>
CD
(D CO in
5 II
ice.
crib
lore
crib
crib
/itie
d|J3
CD
CO CO 3
CD =
in in in
i CO
ro CO e CO
<D g-
_o o o
Q - t CD
X CD O)
CD b
CO CD CD CD CD CD
O CO
QQ Q Q E 2 Q ob CO Q CO Ol LU CL CO
QQ
ions
sed
CO
III
-J .E
3
a) co" o 2 11 CO-8
I
w (0
c 3
0) U
E QOT
Q
SSI t ) CO
<
2 o
<f 1}
1
o
1^ <" 8:
T3
O <D
ro ro
C
Si o
CD
3
o 3
c3
CO
c .9 CO CO
B
^1
manu
"3 - 0
W in CO c
Q. CO CO CO
9 TJ CO
CD CD 0
O) O at O 'c DQ CO
roo. CD CO c
O CO
CL
III
CO
C CD C <D a.
o "0 tk
ES i CJ
E
soci tion
CD
servi
iews
g
sai
Q.
8
^ 3 o
z 1$ CO 0
CD 0
n CD CD
StUi
I
UJ
5 iP
CD
TJ
fe
.p
CO = C
CO . 5 CO
CD C
X
CD
CO
<?
C CD CO
<E o 0 <u
z o O o CO
o Io>
CO
c
CO
unt N
996
CO
1
O)
in
C3>
CVJ
CJ) ^
CO CD
O) C3) CJ)
s CJ) CJ) CJ)
0
3 ca
c
c
1 CO
T3 t^ T3
CD
CO II
Yip and Ma
T3 0
E CD
5 o a >. o
ruba 1
16 a3
astlet
r
tai
CO u
e 0 CO 0 .CO CO z
a.
I
ardo,
egrai
node
Spe
<D
"5. 0
r
5. 0
I z 0. CL CO
CO 5
s:
CO 1
<I
Supplier
Customers
Sales
Most 1 Marketing
important Activities I Actors Information
Technology
Normal Manufacturing
Research and
Development
Finance
great deal." Therefore, we defme activity proactiveness as individual activity but rather a coordinated team effort. It
the extent to which activities are initiated by the supplier. has been suggested that the use of teams is a reaction to the
Actors. Probably the most frequently discussed topic in use of purchasing teams on the buyer side (Hutt, Johnston,
key account program research is which special actors partic- and Ronchetto 1985). We defme the use of teams as the
ipate in key account activities. These specialized actors can extent to which teams are formed to coordinate activities for
be viewed as a personal coordination mode in KAM. The key accounts.
participation of special actors has a horizontal and a vertical Whereas teams refer to the horizontal participation in
component. The KAM literature suggests that there are KAM, another fundamental issue pertains to vertical partic-
many possibilities for horizontally placing KAM actors, ipation. The KAM actors may be placed at the headquarters,
ranging from a line manager who devotes part of his or her at the division level, or at the regional level (Shapiro and
time to managing key accounts to teams that are fully dedi- Moriarty 1984a). The importance of senior executive
cated to key accounts (Shapiro and Moriarty 1984a). Simi- involvement in KAM has frequently been underscored in the
larly, Olson, Walker, and Ruekert (1995) present a range of KAM literature. As Millman and Wilson (1999, p. 330)
coordination mechanisms with a permanent team at one end note, KAM "is a strategic issue and the process should
of their continuum. Marshall, Moncrief, and Lassk (1999, p. therefore be initiated and overseen by senior management."
96) note that "team work is a fairly new concept in manag- Napolitano (1997, p. 5) points out that "Top management
ing accounts and that salespeople are working in a team for- must also play the lead role in securing business unit man-
mat much more today than in the past." Cespedes, Doyle, agement support for the program." This view is supported by
and Freedman (1989) even argue that selling is no longer an writers on strategy implementation, who argue that the orga-
TABLE 2
Sample Composition
Totai
A: Position of Respondents (n = 385)
TABLE 3
Cluster Description
Cluster
Cross-
Top- Middie- Operat- func-
Manage- Manage- ing- tional, Unstruc- Country-
ment ment Levei dominant tured isolated Ciub
Dimen- KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM No KAM Totai
sion Variabie (n = 37) (n = 76) (n = 57) (n = 44) (n = 38) (n = 40) (n = 37) (n = 46) (n = 375)
Activities Activity
intensity 4.99b 5. 5.44c 4.75b 5.00b 4.19^ 4.in 4.86
Activity
proactiveness 4.15bc 4.13bc 4.16bc 3.54^ 3.7^^ 4.08
Formali- Approach
zation formalization 5.48< 5.056 5.64 2.81b 3.64C 2.72b 4.15
- -
Actors Top-
management
involvement 5.666 3.98C 3.19b 4.23cd 4.59^ 3.19b 3.93
Use of teams 5.05^ 3.08b 5.626 3.16b 4.49= 2.18^ 2.53^ 3.93
Resources Selling
center esprit
de corps 5.57c 5.28b 5.52<: 6.1 5.97<i 3.93a 4.69b 3.82B 5.14
Access to
marketing
and sales
resources 5.34bc 5.11b 6.51 5.95d 5.50=1 6.44 4.4^ 5.62
Access to
nonmarketing
and nonsales
resources 4.37^ 5.18b 4.4^ 6.05= 5.51b 4.2ga 5.40b 4.73a 4.92
Additional Dedication
Descriptive to key
Variables accounts 73%c 70%bc 57%ab 66%
Internal
orientation 62%c 58%i>c 51%
Span of
accounts
(median) 8 10 5
Notes: Reported values are mean values if not otherwise noted. In each row, cluster means that have the same superscript are not significantly
different (p < .05) on the basis of Duncan's multiple-range test. Means in the lowest band are assigned "a," means in the next highest
band "b," and so forth. Means in tbe highest band are printed In bold; means in tbe lowest band are in italics.
KAM Approach
Cross-
func-
Top- Middie- Operat- tionai,
Manage- Manage- ing- domi- Unstruc- Country-
ment ment Levei nant tured Isolated Club
KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM KAM No KAM Totai
Variable (n = 37) (n = 76) (n = 57) (n = 44) (n = 38) (n = 40) (n = 37) (n = 46) (n = 375)
Use of teams Much Little Much- Very Little Medium Very Very
very much little little
much
Selling center Rather Rather Rather Strong Strong Weak Rather Weak
esprit de corps strong weak strong weak
We now interpret the clusters in turn and assign labels to low. This may suggest that access to resources is barely
the approaches. Although there are risks of oversimplifica- needed. Top management might negotiate umbrella con-
tion in using such labels, they serve the didactic purpose of tracts, which operative teams carry out using highly stan-
highlighting empirically distinct aspects of different dardized procedures.
approaches and facilitate the discussion of the results. Middle-management KAM. Middle-management KAM
Top-management KAM. Top-management KAM truly manifests a high level of formalization, but in contrast to the
deserves the name "program." These companies highly for- first approach, top-management involvement is medium.
malize the management of their key accounts. More than Intensity and proactiveness with respect to activities are also
60% of companies in this cluster have dedicated sales man- on a medium level. These results may suggest that these
agers who coordinate activities for key accounts, which is companies have installed a formal key account program, but
consistent with the finding that 73% of key account coordi- on a middle-management level. Our interpretation is sup-
nators' time is devoted to key accounts. Of the approaches, ported by the finding that 28.8% of key account coordinators
top-management KAM manifests the highest degree of top- are locally based in this approach, compared with 13.8% in
management involvement in KAM. Therefore, it is not sur- top-management KAM. That key account managers are
prising that this approach is managed out of the company often locally based may also explain the high access to mar-
headquarters (86.1% of key account coordinators are based keting and sales resources. On the contrary, selling center
in the suppliers' headquarters). In addition to heavy top- esprit de corps and access to nonmarketing and nonsales
management involvement, these companies make extensive resources are low, which gives the overall impression that
use of teams. Activities for key accounts are intense and are KAM in these companies is mainly driven by (local) middle
proactively initiated. An interesting finding is that selling management in the marketing and sales function.
center esprit de corps is high, whereas access to marketing Operating-level KAM. Companies using operating-level
and sales as well as nonmarketing and nonsales resources is KAM are doing a lot for their key accounts and have con-
59 59 59
CO CO in
CO iri iri
^ II
59
5 c s CM to CO CO CO
CO d CO
00 CM
CO CM o
CO CO
59
_3 CO CO in (O
OP CO
4 . S CO CM
5
q (> in in CO
5 CO
CM
ai OJ
CO
CO
CO
59
o in CO r^ in
CO >t CO CO iri
M in
w
2re TJ 5?
t--.
c 3 _ CO 00 CO
a
^ S 6a
n
o CO
c T^ CO in
CO
in
CD u
q
CM
in
B) O c ^ CM
I S -5 5 " CO to 1- q
CO iri CO OJ iri
5?
CO
(0
o CM
Q.
59
<0 CO
cJ CO o>
CO CO CO
CO iri CO
CM
(0 s CM CO 5 I; ?:
CD
CO
(A
CO CO
CO CO
5
OJ
CO CO
CM CO
11 15 0)
CO
B
"'
~ <u
III 2"
in C7>
CO (]}
2 2
0) > . O o o 2 CD CO 0)
O 0) O B
,o
d^O > > O
I 00
.S c
in in
I
*
I ft
C\|
CO
Cll
ui
TJ
.a
w * 11 a 00
in in 00 ui
id .o
CO
o TJ
o (O in 5
o ui ui ui u>
UJ O
-I 0)
m u
i in q
in
O5
I
CO
CO CM 00 05
in in
* ; II CO
I)
q tn
a
00
CO
ui tn (d
S P
(0
(D
o = .a (D
CO
CO .>
E
I"
0)
CO
a.
OT
N
M
ANCOVA Results
Covariates
Market Competitive
Approach Dynamism Intensity
Dependent Total Model
Variable: Mean of Mean of Mean of
Models 1 Mean of F Squares F Squares F Squares F
Through 4 Squares (P) (d.f. = 7) (P) (d.f. = 1) (P) (d.f. = 1) (P)
1.KAM 1.76 3.72 2.20 4.65 <.O1 .81 1.72
effectiveness (d.f. = 9;370) (.96) (.19)
2. Performance in 3.63 5.58 4.15 6.37 2.27 3.48 .85 1.31
the market (d.f. = 9;370) (06) (.25) (.25)
3. Adaptiveness 5.72 7.81 6.54 8.93 1.93 2.64 .47 .64
(d.f. = 9;369) (.11) (.42)
4. Profitability 22.81 3.99 12.19 2.13 .90 .16 125.97 22.05
(d.f. = 9;322) (.04) (.69)
Notes: d.f. = degrees of freedom.
An additional contribution of our taxonomic research is Salle, and Spencer (1995) has shown, key account
to provide deeper insights into the perfonnance aspects of approaches evolve over time. Further research should also
K A M approaches. On a general level, it is important to note capture the dynamic performance effects of K A M . As
that the same level of perfonnance can be accomplished Kalwani and Narayandas (1995) have shown, the beneficial
through different approaches. Yet some approaches perform outcomes of customer-oriented activities appear with a cer-
significantly worse than others. The finding that no-KAM tain delay. Another limitation of our article is the use of a
companies are behind on all perfonnance dimensions repre- single-informant design, which focuses on one side of the
sents the most comprehensive empirical demonstration so seller-buyer dyad. Future studies should also take the key
far that suppliers benefit from managing their key accounts. accounts' perspectives into consideration. This is particu-
The similar perfonnance of isolated K A M indicates that larly important for analyzing the outcomes of K A M . One
mediocre approaches to K A M are likely to fail. These way to extend our examination of outcomes would be to dif-
results suggest that failure to achieve access to and commit- ferentiate the performance impacts of individual K A M
ment of cross-functional resources seems to play a critical dimensions. In this context, the effect of KAM-level out-
role for the success of K A M programs. This reinforces comes on organization-level outcomes should be explored
recent research on marketing organization that recognizes as well.
the cross-functional dispersion of marketing activities Another open issue is the effect of the environment on
(Workman, Homburg, and Gruner 1998). K A M dimensions. The literature has claimed that the for-
On a general level, our work has shown that there is mation of key account programs is influenced by character-
value in blending relationship marketing concepts and mar- istics of buyers and of the market environment, such as pur-
keting organization concepts. Within our conceptual model, chasing centralization, purchasing complexity, demand
the actor, resources, and formalization dimensions are concentration, and competitive intensity (Boles, Johnston,
inspired by marketing organization research, and the activ- and Gardner 1999; Stevenson 1980). Yet rigorous empirical
ity and the outcome dimensions draw on relationship mar- research linking multiple environmental dimensions to mul-
keting research. tiple K A M dimensions is still lacking.
APPENDIX
Scale Items for Theoretical Measures
Composite
Reliability/
Coefficient
Construct Items Aipha
Activity intensity Compared to average accounts, to what extent do you do MORE in .75/.71
(reflective scale, scored on a these areas for key accounts?
seven-point scale with Product-related activities (e.g., product adaptation, new product
anchors 1 = "not more than development, technology exchange)
for average accounts" and Service-related activities (e.g., training, advice, troubleshooting,
7 = "far more than for guarantees)
average accounts") Price-related activities (e.g., special pricing terms, corporatewide
price terms, offering of financing solutions, revelation of own cost
structure)
Distribution and logistics activities (e.g., logistics and production
processes, quality programs, placement of own employees in
account's facilities, taking over business processes from customer)
Information sharing (e.g., sharing of strategy and market research,
joint production plans, adaptation of information systems, access to
top management)
Promotion activities to final custoniers (e.g., joint advertising and
promotion programs to help the account sell your products)
Activity proactiveness Do the activities in these areas derive more from customer initiative or
(formative scale, scored on a more from your own initiative?
seven-point scale with (Items equivaletit to activity intensity.)
anchors 1 = "not more than
for average changes" and 7 =
"far more than for average
changes")
Top-management invoivement Within our organization ... .64/.62
(reflective scale, scored on a even small matters related to key accounts have to be referred to
seven-point scale with someone higher up for a final decision.
anchors 1 = "strongly very few decisions related to key accounts are made without the
disagree" and 7 = "strongly involvement of senior managers,
agree") top management often deals with key account management.
Composite
Reliability/
Coefficient
Construct Items Alpha
Selling center esprit de corps People involved in the management of a key account... .92/.90
(adapted from Jaworski and are genuinely concerned about the needs and problems of each other,
Kohli 1993; reflective scale, have a team spirit which pervades all ranks involved,
scored on a seven-point scale feel like they are part of a big family,
with anchors 1 = "strongly feel they are "in it together."
disagree" and 7 = "strongly lack an "esprit de corps." (R)*
agree") view themselves as independent individuals who have to tolerate
others around them. (R)*
Access to marketing and How easy is it for the key account coordinator to obtain needed .75/.69
sales resources contributions for key accounts from these groups?
(reflective scale, scored on a Field sales
seven-point scale with Customer service
anchors 1 = "very difficult" Product management
and 7 = "very easy")
Access to nonmarketing and How easy is it for the key account coordinator to obtain needed .85/.81
nonsales resources contributions for key accounts from these groups?
(reflective scale, scored on a Research and development
seven-point scale with Manufacturing
anchors 1 = "very difficult" Logistics
and 7 = "very easy") Finance/accounting
Information technology
General management
Approach formalization Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: .87/.84
(reflective scale, scored on a We have established criteria for selecting key accounts.
seven-point scale with Within our organization, formal internal communication channels are
anchors 1 = "strongly followed when working on key accounts.
disagree" and 7 = "strongly To coordinate the parts of our organization working with key
agree") accounts, standard operating procedures have been established.
We have put a lot of thought into developing guidelines for working
with our key accounts.
KAM effectiveness Compared to your average accounts, how does your organization .88/.85
(reflective scale, scored on a perform with key accounts with respect to ...
seven-point scale with achieving mutual trust?
anchors 1 = "very poor," 4 = achieving information sharing?
"about the same," and 7 = achieving a reputation of fairness?
"excellent") achieving investments into the relationship?
maintaining long-term relationships?
reducing conflicts?
meeting sales targets and objectives?
making sales of those products with the highest margins?*
making sales from multiple product divisions?*
Performance in the market Relative to your competitors, how has your organization, over the last .88/.85
(reflective scale, scored on a three years, performed with respect to ...
seven-point scale with achieving customer satisfaction?
anchors 1 = "very poor," 4 = providing value for customers?
"about the same," and 7 = attaining desired growth?
"excellent") securing desired market share?
successfully introducing new products?
keeping current customers?
attracting new customers?
Adaptiveness Relative to your competitors, how has your organization, over the last .86/.84
(reflective scale, scored on a three years, performed with respect to ...
seven-point scale with adapting to changes in the business environment of your company?
anchors 1 = "not more than adapting to changes in competitors' marketing strategies?
for average accounts" and adapting your products quickly to the changing needs of customers?
7 = 'iar more than for reacting quickly to new market threats?
average accounts") exploiting quickly new market opportunities?
Profitability What was your company's average pre-tax profit margin over the last
(interval item with ten levels three years? 1 = negative; 2 = 0%-2%, 3 = 2%-4%, 4 = 4%-6%, 5 =
of variable provided) 6%-8%, 6 = 8%-10%, 7 = 10%-12%, 8 = 12%-16%, 9 = 16%-20%,
10 = more than 20%
Competitive intensity Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: .82/.81
(adapted from Jaworski and Competition in our industry is cutthroat.
Kohli 1993; reflective scale, There are many "promotion wars" in our industry.
scored on a seven-point scale Anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily.
with anchors 1 = "strongly Price competition is a hallmark of our industry.
disagree" and 7 = "strongly One hears of a new competitive move almost every day.
agree") Our competitors are relatively weak. (R)*
Market dynamism Piease indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: .65/.61
(adapted from Jaworski and In our kind of business, customers' product preferences change quite
Kohli 1993; reflective scale, a bit over time.
scored on a seven-point scale Our customers tend to look for new products all the time.
with anchors 1 = "strongly We are witnessing demand for our products and services from
disagree" and 7 = "strongly customers who never bought them before.
agree") New customers tend to have product-related needs that are different
from those of our existing customers.
We cater to many of the same customers that we used to in the
past. (R)*
REFERENCES
Anderson, Erin and Barton Weitz (1989), "Determinants of Conti- Bailey, Kenneth D. (1994), Typologies and Taxonomies: An Intro-
nuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads," Marketing duction to Classification Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
5aencc, 8(4), 310-23. Publications.
and (1992), 'The Use of Pledges to Build and Sus- Barrett, John (1986), "Why Major Account Selling Works," Indus-
tain Commitment in Distribution Channels," Journal of Mar- trial Marketing Management, 15 (1), 63-73.
keting Research, 29 (February), 18-34. Boles, James S., Hiram C. Barksdale Jr., and Julie T. Johnson
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural (1996), "What National Account Decision Makers Would Tell
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Salespeople About Building Relationships," Journal of Busi-
Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103 (May), ness & Industrial Marketing, 11 (2), 6-19.
411-23. , Wesley Johnston, and Alston Gardner (1999), 'The Selec-
, H^an Hdkansson, and Jan Johanson (1994), "Dyadic tion and Organization of National Accounts: A North-American
Perspective," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 14
Business Relationships Within a Business Network Context,"
(4), 264-75.
Joumai of Marketing, 58 (October), 1-15.
-, Bruce K. Pilling, and George W. Goodwyn (1994), "Revi-
Arabie, Phipps and Lawrence Hubert (1994), "Cluster Analysis in
talizing Your National Account Marketing Program: The NAM-
Marketing Research," in Advanced Methods of Marketing
Audit," Joumai of Business & Industrial Marketing, 9(1), 24-33.
Research, Richard P. Bagozzi, ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell,
Bunn, Michele D. (1993), "Taxonomy of Buying Decision
160-79.
Approaches," Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 38-56.
Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating Non- Cannon, Joseph P. (1992), "A Taxonomy of Buyer-Seller Relation-
response Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of Marketing ships in Business Markets," doctoral dissertation, Kenan-Flagler
Research, 14 (August), 396-402. Business School, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Arnold, David, Julian Birkinshaw, and Omar Toulan (1999), and William D. Perreault Jr. (1999), "Buyer-Seller Rela-
"Implementing Global Account Management in Multinational tionships in Business Markets," Journal of Marketing Research,
Corporations," Thexis, 16 (4), 14-17. 36 (November), 439-60.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Hans Baumgartner (1994), "The Evalua- Cardozo, Richard N., Shannon H. Shipp, and Kenneth J. Roering
tion of Structural Equation Models and Hypothesis Testing," in (1987), "Implementing New Business-to-Business Selling
Principles of Marketing Research, Richard P. Bagozzi, ed. Methods," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 1
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 386-422. (August), 17-26.
and Youjae Yi (1988), "On the Evaluation of Structural , , and (1992), "Proactive Strategic Partner-
Equation Models," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ships: A New Business Markets Strategy," Joumai of Business
ence, 16(0,74-94. & Industrial Marketing, 1 (1), 51-63.
-, and Lynn W. Phillips (1991), "Assessing Con- Cespedes, Frank V. (1993), "Coordinating Sales and Marketing in
struct Validity in Organizational Research," Administrative Sci- Consumer Goods Firms," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10
ence Quarterly, 36 (September), 421-58. (2), 37-55.