integration of marketing and logistics functions: An empirical examination of New Zealand firms, The

Mollenkopf, Diane

Increasingly, organizations are recognizing the importance of integrating their marketing and logistics activities. According to recent trade publications, "whatever the definition, warehousing and distribution are critical to the successful marketing of products: if the product is not where customers want it, when they want it, it is unlikely to sell."1 Also, increasingly, marketing managers are operational managers, balancing complex trade-offs along the line."2

At a conceptual level, managers may well understand and agree to the importance of integrating marketing and logistics activities, but at a practical level integration is often quite difficult to achieve. Firms that are integrated can expect to provide higher levels of customer service, at lower costs, as well as create more satisfied customers and increase profits over the long term.3 This comes about through both improved efficiencies as well as effectiveness in both the marketing and logistics areas and at their interface points throughout the organization. For firms that focus on developing supply chain competencies, process integration and information sharing across firms is necessary to long-term success. Internal integration of a firm's processes has been identified as a key component of achieving supply chain success! Marketing theory, in the form of the marketing concept or its more modernconceptualization of market orientation, provides a rationale for integration, and research supports a direct, positive relationship between integration and performance success or achievement of a competitive advantage.5

Although there is a strong rationale for integrating marketing and logistics functions, the process is often left to practitioners to figure out for themselves. The purpose of this article is an empirical investigation of issues relating to marketing-logistics integration within a firm. Little is known about what contributes to or detracts from a firm's ability to these functions. This study does not seek to confirm the integration-performance link but more practically to address how a firm might go about becoming more integrated. The specific research problem is to identify factors related to inter-functional integration that are managerially relevant.

The marketing discipline itself emerged early in the 20th century as a catalyst for solving the "distribution problem" that existed because of the geographic separation of the manufacturer and customer.6 This physical separation created the need for strategy development in distribution activities at a time when attention was squarely focused on production methods.7 Although marketing was originally conceived as including activities related to demand creation (personal selling, advertising, sales promotion) and demand supply (physical distribution), the discipline has evolved to focus primarily on demand creation (product management, promotional activities). A new discipline called logistics has emerged to address the demand supply activities inherent in the physical distribution functions.8 This disciplinary split has been reflected in business practice as well. Marketing and logistics functions have evolved separately in most organizations, where logistics is now often a major corporate function, distinct and separate from marketing and production functions.9

Yet, both marketing and logistics functions play an important role in creating satisfied customers. Marketing focuses on demand creation through product, price, and promotion mixes whereas logistics typically is more operationally focused on demand satisfaction, that is, getting the right product to the right place at the right time. The typical interface between the two is in the area of customer service.10 Logistics usually is an operational function within an organization, but its strategic importance is increasingly recognized, particularly as part of demand creation activities. Logistics leverage is the "ability to effectively influence market demand through the application of excellent logistics systems, techniques and programs."11 Porter's value chain clearly points out how both marketing and logistics functions are important and linked in a firm's efforts to create value, which suggests that these two functional areas be coordinated in order to maximize value creation.12 Indeed, as Bowersox et al. argue13, integration of marketing and logistics functions is necessary in order to achieve the demand creation capabilities of the logistics function.

A reason for integrating these functions can also be found in the marketing concept, which emerged about forty years ago as "a corporate state of mind that insists on the integration and coordination of all of the marketing functions which, in turn, are melded with all other corporate functions, for the basic objective of producing maximum long-range corporate profits.14 More recent manifestations of the marketing concept have re-emerged in discussion of market orientation, stemming mainly from the work of Kohli and Jaworski and Narver and Slater.15 The exact interpretation of market orientation differs across these two groups of work, but each focuses on the core pillars of the marketing concept in some way. Functional integration forms an important part of the market orientation construct in both conceptualizations.

Several studies have addressed the integration issue. Focusing on interdepartmental issues, Seiler identified conflict between departments as hindering organizational productivity16. Reducing that conflict is advised to get departments working together for improved productivity. Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon investigated marketing's interface with research and development (R&D)17. Their model included strategic issues, environmental uncertainty, organizational factors, and individual factors. Although untested, it was hypothesized that senior management support is a major factor in encouraging integration. Providing an even broader focus, Ruekert and Walker examined the interaction between marketing, accounting, production and R&D.18 Their major premise was that inattention to integration arises from a focus on coordinating within a function. They viewed the integration issue from a social systems perspective, in which conflict is identified as a key variable to control. Among the empirical findings were that formalization is related positively to integration (in this case, formalization refers to the extent that interaction is formalized) and that communication difficulty is related positively to conflicts.

In considering decision-making relating to both marketing and logistics activities within the firm, Webster points out that marketing decisions are made at several different levels.19 Logistics decisions are made at strategic as well as operational and tactical levels, representing different time horizons and magnitudes of effect.20 Therefore, in considering the integration of these two functional areas, it seems prudent to address the integration issue across various decision-making levels.

THE MARKETING-LOGISTICS INTEGRATION MODEL

The literature highlights the importance of integrating the marketing and logistics functions within firms, but what remains unclear is how firms should address the issue. The proposed model identifies many factors thought to influence integration of the two functional areas. These factors consider managerial issues across two decision-making levels of the firm as well as structural issues, or conditions related to the firm environment in which personnel work. These factors are depicted in Figure 1.

Information dissemination and activity coordination. The first dimension involves the sharing of information between the two functions,21 but it is not enough simply to share information between the functional areas. The coordination of activities between the two functions is also a significant aspect of the relationship.22 Thus, integration is deemed to take place when both dissemination and activity coordination occur within an organization. A firm that is well integrated will share relevant customer and market information across the functional areas and develop a coordinated response to that information. The two dimensions are important to this research because of their focus on things firms "do." The independent variables therefore can be considered as factors that affect on how well or to what extent firms perform integration activities.

STRATEGIC FACTORS

The strategic level of decision making is significant in the overall direction of the firm. At this level the mission and the scope of the firm are determined. In other words, the strategic factors determine the orientation of the firm.23

Top Management Emphasis.

By gaining a clear signal from top management regarding the importance of marketing and logistics integration, the people involved in those functions can direct operations accordingly.24 The upper levels of management are not only concerned with strategic decisions but also with instilling clear signals throughout the firm regarding overall direction. The integration of marketing and logistics functions is a significant contributor to the strategic direction of the firm. Remaining customer focused is an important indicator. Previous research has found significant evidence of the importance of top management emphasis on integration? Consequently, the degree of integration between marketing and logistics is related to the degree of emphasis placed on integration by top management.

H1: Firms characterized by high levels of top management emphasis on integration of marketing and logistics functions will be more integrated than firms with low levels of top management emphasis.

Mutual Goals

Strategic goals of the firm are important to the strategic management process. Mutual goals refer to the ways top management places emphasis within the firm, that is, through strategies, values/ mission statements, or documents or manuals that specify how integration is to occur. The compatibility of various functional strategies within the firm's planning environment is extremely important. By incorporating consideration of marketing and logistics integration into the goals of the firm, management encourages the entire organization to understand the importance of developing functional integration. According to Murphy and Poist,26 the development of mutual goals for the achievement of marketing and logistics integration plays an important support role in enforcing upper management's emphasis on integration. Mutual goals are expected to generate a level of interest and perceived importance for marketing and logistics integration in the firm.

H2: Firms characterized by a high level of mutual goal development between marketing and logistics functions will be more integrated than firms with a low level of mutual goal development.

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT FACTORS

The tactical and operational decision-making levels are concerned with implementing the strategies of the firm. Theory suggests that day-to-day management of operational personnel must take place in the medium-term development of strategies, and that front line managers play a significant role in personnel management.27 Thus, it is significant for middle management to incorporate activities and attitudes that instil operational forms of marketing and logistics integration.

In New Zealand business, many firms are of moderate size, and separate levels of middle management (here interpreted as line managers and traditional middle managers) often are not evident. Therefore, this research combines these levels into one notion of "middle management." The influence of middle management in the integration process is represented in the following three dimensions.

Cooperative Attitudes

There is a feeling of unity across departments when employees are encouraged to work together. The instilling of such values in everyday operations should advance the level of integration. Middle managers can bring this about by using such mechanisms as participatory decision making, which aims to bring subsystems in the firm together.28

H3: Firms characterized by a high level of cooperative attitudes fostered between marketing and logistics personnel will be more integrated than firms with a low level of cooperative attitudes.

Liaison Activities

In addition to attitudes at the operational level, specific activities by middle management influence the integration between marketing and logistics functions. Liaison activities refer to whether an individual is designated to resolve marketing/logistics problems or to the level and type of procedures that exist regarding how marketing/logistics personnel are to work together. This encapsulates notions of situational bargaining, whereby issues between the functions are dealt with as they arise, or the development of task forces that can act as integrative tools.29 Liaison activities complete the fostering of cooperative attitudes. Together, these capture a directive role of middle management in facilitating the integration of marketing and logistics functions.

H4: Firms characterized by a high level of liaison activities directed to marketing and logistics personnel will be more integrated than firms with a low level of liaison activities.

Cross-Education and Training

The education and training of one discipline in the principles of the other creates a greater awareness for working together, particularly as related to understanding customers, their requirements, and service levels. Although a distinction can be made between education (theoretical) and training (practical), both elements are included in this study. It is the provision of education and training that provides a basis for what functional areas need to share or coordinate, and thus higher levels of education or training should lead to higher levels of actual integration.30

H5: Firms characterized by a high level of cross-education and training of marketing and logistics personnel will be more integrated than firms with a low level of cross-education and training.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL FACTORS

With regard to the structural aspects of the firm, we consider factors relating to how departments operate and interact. There is a necessary level of tolerance for interaction between any parts of the organization. Functions must work together to some degree on a daily basis, and the manner in which this appears in the underlying structure of the firm will affect the ability to progress to greater levels of functional integration. This tolerance is represented here by conflict and connectivity.

Inter-functional Conflict

Conflict is likely to reduce the level of integration due to reduced communication between functions. Conflict can manifest itself as power/dominance (perceived or real) by one function over another, and role ambiguity can cause functions to polarize. Even the people who occupy certain roles can be resented, which further contributes to separation between functions.31 Conflict can be overcome when both functions understand the common goals of the firm, and this is particularly true of marketing and logistics32 Marketing-related studies show that conflict can reduce the integration of functions, and in more general studies of interdepartmental conflict, it has been found to have negative effects on performance.33 Conflict influences the degree of activity coordination between the functions,34 and thus it is expected to influence negatively the level of integration between marketing and logistics.

H6: Firms characterized by a low level of inter-functional conflict between marketing and logistics personnel will be more integrated than firms characterized by a high level of inter-functional conflict.

Inter-functional Connectivity

This captures the level of formal and informal direct contact among employees across the functions.35 Contact is not necessarily limited to physical proximity of personnel; it can encompass the accessibility that personnel feel they have to people in other functional areas. In short, it deals with interpersonal issues and the nature of the working relationships in the firm. 36 Therefore, it is expected that the more people are able and willing to communicate, the more likely they are to share information and work closely with others in responding to that information.

H7: Firms characterized by a high level of inter-functional connectivity between marketing and logistics personnel will be more integrated than firms characterized by a low level of inter-connectivity.

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS

Structures and systems that pervade the firm help create the conditions in which employees operate. Three such factors are incorporated into this study.

Formalization

Formalization refers to the emphasis placed on following specific rules and procedures. Such an emphasis reduces the desire of decision-makers to find, locate, and use information in the firm.37 Innovative problem solving and information flows between functions are fostered by low formalization.

This is because rules and procedures may stifle autonomous creative processes. Implicitly, this means that both information dissemination and activity coordination will be encouraged in a firm with a low level of formalization.

A number of researchers have proposed the opposite and/or do not find a significant relationship between formalization and information sharing/work coordination in firms.38 These studies usually address a different type of formalization, which encourages more formal communication between functions. Here, we continue the definitional direction of Jaworski and Kohli in the focus on rules that inhibit information flow and freedom for functions to work together easily.39

H8: Firms characterized by a low level of formalization will be more integrated than firms with a high level of formalization will.

Centralization

Centralization refers to the extent to which decision-making authority is delegated, or the extent of participation in making decisions throughout the firm. Highly centralized and departmentalized firms tend to behave in more segregated fashion.40 Employees in decentralized organizations are expected to work together more closely in terms of both sharing information and coordinating activities.

H9: Firms characterized by a low level of centralization will be more integrated then firms with a high level of centralization will.

Reward Systems

Functional areas in the firm must receive some form of recognition for gearing operations and work activities toward integration. Such rewards develop commitment to customer-oriented concerns throughout the organization. At both the managerial and the operational level, the perception of joint rewards sends a clear signal to the departments about the culture of integration.41 As Jaworksi and Kohli empirically demonstrate, rewards for achieving customer satisfaction encourage the dissemination of information42. Thus, rewards throughout the organization based on meeting the desirable objectives of integration are expected to enhance the level of marketing-logistics integration.

H10: Frims characterized by a high level of reward systems will be more integrated than firms characterized by a low level of reward systems.

RESEARCH METHODS

Across-sectional mail survey of New Zealand firms was conducted among a wide range of industries. This testing method was used because of the dispersion and restricted size of New Zealand firms.

Sample and Sample Size

We targeted firms that have some association with marketing and logistics activities. Consumer-based firms were selected as the broad area because these were expected to be part of a physical distribution chain. Three categories were identified: manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers. This was done to capture any differences in integration across different levels in the supply chain. A sample that satisfied these criteria was selected from a database company in New Zealand, targeting either marketing or logistics managers (but not from the same firm)43. These managers were chosen for two reasons. First, their middle management position meant that they would have some comprehension of the vertical levels above and below them in the firm. Second, they could be easily chosen from the database. That is, they best suited the need to identify marketing and logistics elements in the firm. The two types of managers were selected so that a comparison between respondents could be drawn.

Calculations suggested that a statistical power of .80, at a 5% level of significance for standard multiple regression analysis, required 88 responses."' Based on an expected response rate of 25%, a minimum sample size of 352 was required. The purchased mailing list had 606 names, of which 142 were used in pretesting. In the main data collection phase 464 surveys were mailed.

Questionnaire Development and Structure

To operationalize the factors associated with marketing and logistics integration, measures were adapted as much as possible from existing research studies. When necessary, new scales were developed by the authors.45

Multi-item scales were developed for all the constructs so that each domain could be tapped extensively. Respondents were asked to indicate their firm's stance on a scale question by circling a number from 1 to 7. Two forms of the scale were used, depending on the way in which the question was stated: "Strongly Disagree" (1) to "Strongly Agree" (7); and "Never" (1) to "Often" (7). Because differences between these terms were deemed negligible, the scales were considered as similar.

A number of techniques suggested by Dillman were used in creating the questionnaire and cover letter, in order to increase responses. 46 These included: emphasizing to respondents their value to the questionnaire; making sure respondents understood how important they were to the study; and making the questionnaire as interesting, clear, and concise as possible. Results from the pretest regarding its length were very positive.

The first section of the questionnaire requested general information about the firm. Items such as firm size and type provided information that, in the statistical analysis, could establish whether there were differences in the level of marketing-logistics integration in different types of firms.

The remaining part of the questionnaire was structured so that the respondents could develop cognitive ties between the groups of questions. A number of items in the "Strongly Disagree/Strongly Agree" section were reverse scaled to help reduce the tendency for answers in one direction.'

Pretest Procedures

The questionnaire was protested in order to gain feedback about its structure and clearness, before the main mailing. In the pretest, the questionnaire, a cover letter, and a postage-paid, self-addressed return envelope were mailed to 142 managers. The ratio of marketing to logistics managers was in direct proportion to the total available sample. The response rate was 30%. Nearly all returns were usable, such that 29% of the sample of 142 was analyzed.

The reliability of the items in the pretest was checked with Cronbach's alpha. This was particularly relevant, given that a number of new scales were developed in this research. Analysis revealed satisfactory scores of alpha => .70 for all but three variables; formalization, centralization and mutual goals were below the acceptable .70 level.48 In light of this, a number of measures were adjusted, and items were added. All items remained in the analysis at this stage, because the modifications needed to be analyzed in the context of the complete set. Also, a larger sample was needed for a thorough test of the item reliability before decisions were made to eliminate any variables or parts thereof.

Main Questionnaire Data Collection

The revised questionnaire (including improvements suggested by pretest respondents) was sent to the firms in the main sample. As in the pretest, a personalized cover letter, the questionnaire, and a postage-paid return envelope were sent. The cover letter explained the research and thoroughly emphasized confidentiality. A code was used to help with the follow-up mailing, and the use of this code was also fully explained to the respondents. The follow-up mailing, conducted 14 days after the first, contained an identical package.

RESULTS

The 186 usable responses represent an overall response rate of 40%. Because, 31 responses were from non-marketers/logisticians (they identified themselves as CEO's or general managers), they were removed from analysis, leaving 155 responses used in the analysis. Although these were more marketing than logistics managers on the original mailing list (due to the ability to identify managers in these positions through the list house employed) were, response rates of each group were consistent. For both, within-group response rates were 33%.

Due to the unequal group size of the marketers and logisticians, sample bias is a threat. As noted, however, both had equal within-group response rates, and when both groups were compared for difference in mean values on the dependent variable, no significant differences were found. Also late respondents were compared with early respondents to check for non-response bias; no differences were found. Thus, we are confident that the samples are indeed representative of the populations from which they were drawn. Respondents are described in Table 1.

Factor analysis was conducted to test for unidimensionality of the constructs. Interestingly, not all the measures loaded exactly as had been assumed. Careful review indicated that several items needed to be regrouped, and a few that did not load strongly on any variable were dropped. The two variables relating strategic factors - `top management emphasis and mutual goals'- loaded as a single factor. These items were combined into a variable called "strategic management." After these steps were taken, reliability tests were run on the revised variables (revised variables, mean scores, standard deviations, and Cronbach alphas are reported in the Appendix). All variables had reliability scores greater than .70 with the exception of the formalization and conflict variables. A decision was made to retain formalization in the analysis because its reliability was only slightly below the recommended .70, but the conflict variable measured less than .50, so it was dropped from further analysis.49

We then tested for collinearity among any of the variables by calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each of the regression coefficients. The VIF ranged from a low of 1.04 to a high of 2.33, well below the cut-off of 10 recommended by Neter et al.50 These results suggest that collinearity is not a likely threat to substantive conclusions drawn from the parameter estimates.

To test the hypotheses, multiple regression was employed. The overall model proved significant and accounted for 65% of variation in the dependent variable, integration. Four of the independent variables proved significant: strategic management, connectivity, formalization and cross-education and training. The remaining four were insignificant. Results are presented in Table 2. Variables significant p

Conceptually, the notion of integration as presented here is a combination of both information dissemination and activity coordination. Because these two components factored into their two predicted dimensions, the regression model was rerun twice, breaking the dependent variable into its component parts of dissemination of information and coordination of activities. Results from these regression models are shown in tables 3 and 4, respectively. The purpose was to determine if some independent variables were better predictors of one component than the other was. Interestingly, cooperative attitudes are a significant predictor of the coordination of activities dimension of the integration variable, which provides partial support for hypothesis 3.

The data were analyzed again, this time separating the marketers' and the logisticians' responses. We wanted to see whether both groups felt that the same factors were important in determining the degree of integration within a firm. Simplified results are presented in Table 5 (showing standardized beta coefficients and the significance level in parentheses). There is much commonality across the two groups, but some differences should be noted. For example, cooperative attitude seems to be more important to logisticians than to marketers, and formalization seems to be more important to marketers. Note however, that formalization has a positive sign for logisticians, not the expected negative sign.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The revised marketing-logistics integration model depicted in Figure 2 reveals the variables that are significantly related to integration. This model is based on the results shown in Tables 3 and 4, indicating the separate dimensions of the integration variable. The first point to note is the importance of the strategic management factor in the model. This revised variable was significant in the overall model, as well as each of the models looking at the two separate dimensions of integration.

Both marketers and logisticians recognize the importance of strategic management in effecting functional integration. The importance of this variable highlights for managers the necessity of incorporating integration into the strategic focus of the firm. Creating a culture of integration by creating a common focus on the customer could be one way to incorporate integration at the strategic level.

At the middle management level, both cross-education/training and a cooperative attitude play roles in fostering integration. Cross-education and training is a significant variable in the overall model, as well as in both models representing the two dimensions of integration and for both marketers and logisticians (with only slight variations between the two groups). Middle managers can foster integration by supporting and involving their employees in various types of cross-training, whether formal (such as seminars or classes) or informal (such as periodic job swaps or learning sessions between employees in different functional areas).

Cooperative attitudes also seem to be important in fostering coordination of activities. Interestingly, logisticians consider this variable important, whereas marketers do not. Both marketers and logisticians, however, should capitalize on opportunities to foster a more cooperative attitude between the functional areas. This could be brought about through cross-education/training. Whether cooperative attitudes are achieved through cross-training activities or vice versa is not known; however, middle managers seem to have an important role in developing an integrated firm through fostering cooperation and training across functional areas.

Note that three of the four (revised) hypotheses relating to decision making in the firm received at least partial support in their expected relationships with integration. This suggests that mangers, both at top and middle levels, play an important role in fostering functional integration. Indeed, managerial input seems to be more important than the structural factors, which indicate that managers can influence the level of functional integration despite the firm's structure or hierarchy.

Regarding structural factors, two of the four tested relationships (conflict was dropped from analysis) received at least partial support. With respect to the interdepartmental factors, connectivity refers to the direct contact between or accessibility of employees in the marketing and logistics areas. When the barriers between departments are low, and employees have both formal and informal contact across functions, integration is enhanced.

At the organizational structure level, only formalization shows any relationship with either component of integration. Formalization in this study refers to rules governing behavior and the extent to which those rules control employee actions. Even though not directly related to logistics activities per se, such rules can restrict innovation and flexibility. Certainly, that seems to be the case here. Formalization was negatively associated not only with integration in the full model, but also with the coordination of activities dimension of integration. To the extent that rules govern behavior in such a way as to prohibit flexibility or the finding of unique solutions to marketing and logistics situations, formalization can be said to inhibit integration, but this conclusion must be considered cautiously. First, the formalization variable had mixed results in previous studies." Second, when marketers' responses were analyzed separately from logisticians' responses, some unexpected relationships were revealed. For marketers, the expected negative relationship between formalization and integration was found, as in the full model and the partial model looking at coordination of activities. The results for logisticians' are not so clear cut. Formalization was found to be significant for the full model but not for either of the two dimensions of integration (although note that the variable is just under the p

It is also interesting that reward systems did not prove significant in the final model. This variable was measured in two ways: some items focused on direct rewards for integration activities, and other questions focused on rewards for customer-focused activities. The two components factored into a single variable, but a number of variations of this variable were tested in a series of regression models; no version of the reward systems measure proved significantly related to integration. This provides interesting food for thought for managers. Our interpretation is that rewards can be used to foster coordination in the integration process but probably do not work as bribes to induce integration. It seems that rewards in themselves do not replace the culture of integration that stems from the strategic decision-making level of the firm. Clearly, this is an area for future research.

Because New Zealand firms tend to be small by international standards, some thought was given to the generalization of the findings. Small firms were compared to large firms within the sample to assess whether any differences in integration or the relevant factors associated with integration were evident. No differences in mean scores emerged, and the regression models for the two groups were not significantly different. This suggests some level of generalization beyond the New Zealand scene. It also suggests a commonality of issues relating to functional integration of marketing and logistics activities, regardless of firm size.

To assess differences across supply chain levels, retailers and wholesalers were grouped together (due to the small number of retailer respondents) and compared to manufacturers. Once again, no differences were found in mean scores of integration or in regression models for each group. This is an important point, since it implies that a firm's ability to integrate is not dependent upon its supply chain role or closeness to the final consumer. Although the details of implementing an integrated firm may vary across supply chain levels, a commonality of strategic and middle management issues, as compared to structural issues is apparent.

CONCLUSION

The message to managers from this research is that integrated firms incorporate integration into their strategic plans, as evidenced in the goals set and the emphasis placed on integration by top managers. Middle managers play a key role in fostering cooperative attitudes between departments by supporting cross-training/education opportunities for marketing and logistics personnel, which can lead to a sense of connectivity among these employees. This study provides direction for managers who recognize the importance of integration but are unsure about how to achieve it within their firm. To the extent that improved integration leads better customer service, reduced costs, more satisfied customers, or increased profits, the findings of this research can help managers enhance their performance.

Our study contributes to the literature on the importance of functional integration by providing empirical evidence of how firms can improve their marketing-logistics integration. Although there is a conceptual link between these two functional areas, there has been very little research on the process of integration. Our work is a first step in that direction, and provides a framework for further study in this area.

NOTES

1K. Lawrence, "Warehousing and Distribution: Warehouse Work Blues?" (Special Marketing Magazine Report), Marketing Magazine, 17, (October 1998): 45.

2J. Goulter, "Keys to Success: Top Marketers Talk about Marketing," Marketing Magazine, 17, (February, 1998): 11.

3Kenneth B. Kahn, and John T. Mentzer, "Marketing's Integration with Other Departments," Journal of Business Research 42,53-62 (1998); Donald J. Bowersox, John T. Mentzer, and Thomas W. Speh, "Logistics Leverage," Journal of Business Strategies 12(2), (1995): 36-49; and Arun Harms, Dhruv Grewal, and Michael Levy, "The Customer Satisfaction/Logistics Interface," Journal of Business Logistics 16(2) (1995):1-21.

4Donald J Bowersox et al., 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality, (Oak Book, IL Council of Logistics Management, 1999).

5Same references as note 3.

6R.D. Voorhees, and J.1. Coppett, "Marketing-Logistics Opportunities for the 1990s," Journal ofBusiness Strategies 7(2) (1986): 33-38,

7A.W. Shaw, "Some Problems in Market Distribution," Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 26, (1912):703-765.

8Lambert, D.M. and Cook, R.L., "Integrating Marketing and Logistics for Increased Profit," Business, 40 (1990): 22-29.

9Same reference as note 8; Lloyd Rinehart, M. Bixby Cooper, and George Wagenheim, "Furthering the Integration of Marketing and Logistics through Customer Service in the Channel," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(1), (1989): 63-71;, Roy Dale Voorhees, R. Kenneth Teas, Benjamin J Allen and Earl T. Dinkler, "Changes in the Marketing-Logistics Relationship," Journal of Business Logistics, 9(1), (1998): 34-50, and Peter M Lynagh, and Richard F. Poist, "Managing Physical Distribution/Marketing Interface Activities: Cooperation or Conflict?" Transportation Journal 23(3) (1984): 36-43.

10Same reference as note 3 to Sharma, Grewal, and Levy.

11Same reference as note 3 to Bowersox, Mentzer, and Speh, p. 41.

12Michael E. Porter, Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (New York: The Free Press, 1985).

13Same reference as note 11.

14 A.P. Felton, "Making the Marketing Concept Work," Harvard Business Review 37(4) (1959): 55-65.

15A.K. Kohli, and B.J. Jaworski, "Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Proposition, and Managerial Implications," Journal ofMarketing 54(2) (1990): 1-18; B.J. Jaworski, and, A.K. Kohli, "Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal ofMarketing 57(3) (1993): 53-70; and Stanley F. Slater, and, John C. Narver, "Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship?" Journal of Marketing 58(1) (1994): 46-55.

16J.A. Seiler, "Diagnosing Interdepartmental Conflict," Harvard Business Review 41 (September/October 1963): 121-132.

17A.K. Gupta, S.P. Raj, and D. Wilemon, "A Model for Studying the R&D-Marketing Interface in the Product Innovation Process," Journal of Marketing 50 (April 1986): 7-17.

18R.W. Ruekert, and O.C. Walker, Jr., "Marketing's Interaction with Other Functional Units: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Evidence," Journal of Marketing 51(1) (1987): 1-19.

19Frederick, E. Webster, Jr., "The Changing Role of Marketing in the Corporation," Journal of Marketing 56(4) (1992): 1-17.

20John L. Gattorna, "Creating an Effective Logistics Systems Solution: The Role of People," Asia Pacific International Journal of Business Logistics 5(1) (1992): 11-14.

21Same reference as note 15 to B.J. Jaworski, and AX Kohli; P.R.Murphy, and, R.F. Poist, "The Logistics-Marketing Interface: Techniques for Enhancing Coooperation, Transportation Journal 32(2) (1992): 14-23; and Thomas W. Speh, "Physical Distribution-Marketing Interfaces: Research and Implications," Annual Conference Proceedings: National Council of Physical Distribution Management, 1977, pp. 25-40.

22P.B. Schary, and, B.W. Becker, "The Marketing/Logistics Interface," International./ournal of Physical Distribution 3(4) (1973): 247-288, and same reference as note 9 to Rinehart, Cooper, and Wagenheim,

23 Same references as notes 14 and 19.

24Ted Levitt, "Marketing Myopia," Harvard Business Review, 38(4) (1969): 45-5, B.J. Jawworski and A.K. Kohli, "Marketing Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal of Marketing, 57(3) (1993): 53-70.

25K.M. Bartol, D.C.Martin, M. Tein, and G. Matthews, "Management: A Pacific RimFocus, Sydney: McGraw-Hill (1995); B.J. Jawworski andA.K. Kohli, "Marketing Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences," Journal ofMarketing, 57(3) (1993): 53-70; PR. Murphy and R.FE Poist, "The Logistics-Marketing Interface: Techniques for Enhancing Cooperation, Transportation Journal, 32(2) (1992): 14-23.

26Same reference as note 21 to Murphy, and Poist.

27S. Kerr, K.D. Hill, and L. Broedling, "The First-Line Supervisor: Phasing Out or Here to Stay?" Academy ofManagement Review 11(l) (1986):103-117.

28Same reference as note 26; and C. Droge and R. Germain, "The Impact of the Centralized Structuring of Logistics Activities on Span of Control, Formalization and Performance," Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 17(1) (1989): 83-89;

29Same reference as note 21 to Speh; D. Miller, "Strategy Making and Structure Analysis and Implications for Performance," Academy of Management Journal 39(1) (1987): 7-32; Same reference as note 28 to Droge, and Germain; and same reference as note 26.

30Same references as notes 17 and 26.

31Same reference as note 14; same reference as note 21 to Speh.

32D. Scott, "Marketing, Logistics and Inventory," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management 19(5) (1989): 26-30.

33Same reference as note 15 to Jaworski, and Kohli. Same reference as note 18; and, J.M. Dutton and R.E. Walton, "Interdepartmental Conflict and Cooperation: Two Contrasting Studies," Human Organization 25(3) (1966): 207-220.

34Same reference to note 21 to Speh.

35Same reference as note 15 to Jaworski, and Kohli.

36M. Aiken, and J. Hage. "Organizational Independence and Intra-Organizational Structure," American Sociological Review 33 (1968): 912-930, G. Zaltman, R. Duncan, and, J. Holbek, Innovations and Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973); and same reference as note 18.

37Same reference as note 36 to Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek.

38See, for example same reference as note 36 to Aiken, and Hage; Same references note 29 to Miller, Same reference as note 18; Same reference as note 28 to Droge, and Germain; and same reference as note 15 Jaworski, and Kohli.

39Same reference as note 15 to Jaworski, and Kohli.

40Same reference as note 36; and same reference as note 15 to Jaworski, and Kohli;

41Same reference as note 21 to Speh; and same references as note 17 and 19.

42Same reference as note 15 to Jaworski, and Kohli;

43We use the term "logistics manager" fairly loosely. Very few firms in New Zealand have positions with that title. Thus, we sought managers who had "logistics," "distribution," or "operations" titles. Because the survey instrument sought to identify a person's title and area of responsibility, we could verify that those respondents classified as "logistics managers" do indeed perform a logistics function within their firm.

44Based on, David C. Howell, Statistical Methods for Psychology, 2nd ed., (Boston: PWSKent Publishing, 1987).

45The literature included same reference as note 15 to Jaworski and Kohli; same reference as note 19; same reference as note 21 to Murphy, and Poist; same reference as note 36 to Aiken, and Hage;. and, G.A. Churchill, Jr., "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February 1979): 64-73.

46D.A. Dillman, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method (New York: USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1978).

47Same reference as note 24.

48Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).

49Although one reviewer suggested retaining measures with low reliability, this step was not taken. Since reliability is a prerequisite to construct validity (G.A. Churchill, Jr., "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February 1979): 64-73), low reliability indicates lack of construct validity, so the researcher has little idea of what is truly being measured. J. Paul Peter ("Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices," Journal of Marketing Research 16, [February 1979]: 6-17) further supports our decision to drop the measure by indicating that unreliable measures attenuate the relationship between variables. Thus, if no relationship were found between conflict and integration, we would not know whether there is truly no relationship or the measures are poor. Conversely, even had a relationship been found, because the construct is not valid, we would have no idea what such a relationship really means. For these reasons, we felt justified in dropping the conflict variable.

50J. Neter, W. Wasserman, and M.H. Kutner, Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs, (Homewood IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc, 1985).

51 Same references as note 15 to Kohli, and Jaworski; and same reference as note 18 to Jaworski, and Kohli.

Diane Mollenkopf

Lincoln University

Antony Gibson

Lumber Logistics

Lucie Ozanne

Lincoln University

Dr. Diane Mollenkopf is Senior Lecturer in Marketing and Distribution at Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. After earning her MBA from Michigan State University in logistics management, she held several logistics positions in the USA for multinational corporations. Upon completing her Ph.D. (Drexel University), she accepted a position at Lincoln University, where she teaches and researches in the areas of logistics and supply chain management, particularly focusing on integration issues. She has published in several marketing and logistics journals and conference proceedings.

Mr. Antony Gibson is Projects Coordinator at Lumber Logistics in Rotorua, New Zealand. He received his master's degree at Lincoln University, focusing on marketing and logistics. This article is based on a portion of his master's thesis.

Dr. Lucie Ozanne is Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. At Lincoln, she teaches and researches in the areas of promotion management and social marketing. Before joining the staff at Lincoln, Lucie was an assistant professor in forest products marketing at the University of Massachusetts. She received her masters and Ph.D. degrees at the Pennsylvania State University. Lucie held several marketing positions in the USA before pursuing an academic career.

Copyright Council of Logistics Management 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved