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

2. 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

3. 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 enactment
of 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 they
may 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 strategy
That 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 strategy
That sustained pattern of resource
allocation and activity regarding
customers to serve and what value to
offer them that is enacted by the
organisation

4. Non-
Discretionary
activity
(That which can
be measured
and rewarded
or punished)
Discretionary
activity
(That which
can’t be
measured and
rewarded or
punished)

5. 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)

6. “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)

7. Conversations
about the
motivations
and
commitment
of individuals
Conversations
about intra-
organisational
conflict
Why is there an espoused-enacted gap in discretionary marketing strategy?

13. • 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

14. 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)

15. Firm level findings
+0.42
+0.32
+0.39
+0.34
+0.11
+0.81
+0.62

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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