Key account teams: success factors for implementing strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore a contributing factor – communication – within a team as well as with a client. Organizations that rely on key account teams for strategy implementation may find their “best laid plans” thwarted by communication problems associated with such teams. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on depth interviews and content analysis. The authors analyze what team members and team leaders say and count positive/negative terms about communication within teams and with clients. These counts of such terms as a proportion of interview length are compared to the actual team success. Findings Negative comments about communication within the team focus on difficulty and positive comments focus on support. Interestingly, however, the best indicator of whether a team has succeeded in selling its key account is the extent of negative expressions about communication from key account managers. Presumably, the structure of key account teams gives them an extra leadership burden, and the authors’ see a relationship between their perception of communication shortcomings and success or failure. Research limitations/implications The authors recommend investigating communication issues when strategy implementation depends on key account teams, but because this study is conducted using a qualitative method with one company, its results cannot be projected. The authors simply demonstrate what a company could learn from conducting its own study and comparing results to its sales success. Originality/value Little research has examined communication in key account teams or linked it to sales success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".