Introduction

The role of the key strategic account manager¹ (ksam), whether operating at local, national or global levels, must be viewed as evolving. Its roots are embedded in the sales function, but there is increasing evidence to suggest that in its evolving form, the role of account manager is much more than the creator of sales, reflecting an increasingly strategic importance of the key account management (KAM) function within the firm.² This paper aims to explore and draw together the extant literature about the role of the ksam and presents a conceptual frame­work that attempts to explain this complex and strategic role. Implications for researchers and managers are discussed and areas requiring further research are identified.

Long-term relationships characterized by high levels of interaction, interdependence and collaboration have long been the norm in business-to-business (B2B) markets (Ford 1990), but a number of factors have increased their level of intensity and strategic importance in recent years, giving rise to the growing importance of the role played by key strategic account managers. Interest in the implementation of KAM processes was driven by changing economic and market conditions in the USA and Europe, starting in the 1950s and impacting to the present day (Wengler 2005), i.e. market saturation and uncertainty, increased demand for cost reduction and avoidance (Shapiro and Wyman 1981), increased pressure for quality and service improvement (Bragg 1982), reduced customer supplier base (Bragg 1982; Shapiro and Wyman 1981), increasing sophistication of buyers (Mayer 1984) and, more recently, increasing levels of globalization. These environmental changes led directly to the adoption of account management processes by many major US companies (Weilbaker and Weeks 1997), a practice that has spread, certainly in the last 20 years, beyond the confines of the USA. Over this time there has been a move towards relational rather than transactional exchange that has resulted in changes in the role span of account managers, reflected in the tasks they perform.

Thus, the role of the key strategic account manager encompasses much more than a strategic selling approach and may be seen as the operationalization, on the supply side, of the interaction, networks and relationships approach to marketing and purchasing that emerged from the work of the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Group over the past 30 years (drawing upon transaction cost economics and inter-organizational theoretical perspectives for its foundations) (Ford 1990), and the relationship marketing approach (Grönroos 1994; Gummesson 1987; Sheth and Parvatiyar 1995).

While relationship marketing encompasses approaches to consumer, services and B2B markets, the IMP model is focused on exploring industrial marketing and purchasing, the domain of the key strategic account manager (Davies et al. 2010; Holt 2003). Both stress the importance of long-term relationships built on individual exchanges, but where the IMP approach brings greater insights is in the additional emphasis placed upon interaction – both buyers and sellers are active – and upon networks (Ford 1990). Dyadic exchange takes place within the context of industry-wide networks of relationships that constrain or facilitate the actions of buyers and sellers (Ford 1990). The role of boundary spanners in linking and facilitating exchange is evident in the IMP approach, which also underpinned the seminal early research in KAM by Millman and Wilson (1995, 1996a).

The evolution of key account management

The importance of interpersonal communication in B2B relationships, though not in the role of the account manager, was recognized early in the IMP literature. Interpersonal relationships were associated with the roles of adaptation, crisis management, insurance, ego-enhancement and sociability (Cunningham and Turnbull 1982). However, it would be some time before attention turned to the role played by account managers in inter-organizational relationships.

Although KAM may be traced back to the 1960s, the first recognition of the singularity of the role performed by account managers may be seen in the formation of the National Account Marketing Association³ in 1964 in the USA, and although it did not represent a departure from a focus upon increased sales towards broader value creation, it did herald a change in emphasis in its recognition that customers, as well as products and markets, were important (Homburg et al. 2000, 2002). It also recognized that not all customers are equal in B2B markets, that some require more attention than others. It was some years later that the academic community recognized the phenomenon (Anderluh 1968; Barrett 1986; Shapiro 1979; Shapiro and Moriarty 1982; Stevenson and Page 1979) and a management book on the topic of key account selling appeared (Hanan 1985).

The literature has reflected the growing interest in KAM but has largely ignored the role performed by individual account managers as organizational boundary spanners (Holt 2003) and the skills, above and beyond those of the salesperson, that they must possess in order to perform their developing role.

Weilbaker and Weeks (1997) identified three stages in the development of interest in KAM, reflected in the literature. They identify an introductory stage between the 1960s and 1984 where the focus was on description of existing account management programmes, disseminating information about account management and providing a macro view of the concept. A growth stage was seen between 1985 and 1994 when empirical studies emerged with a growing recognition of the importance of performance and a focus on micro issues such as customer selection and process improvement. Wotruba and Castleberry's (1993) paper from this period reflects interest in our topic. They discussed the selection of national account managers, recognizing that specialist skills were required beyond those related to selling. A late growth phase in interest in KAM was identified running from 1995, where the literature focused upon some of the theoretical foundations of KAM and the assessment of the performance of different types of account management. Here the issues addressed concentrate on coordination and alignment, value-chain management and performance measures of account managers. Little reference is found to the roles performed by account managers or other players in the account management process.

Nevertheless, Weilbaker and Weeks (1997) conclude their paper with a call to academics to address a number of key issues related to key account management, among which are the topics ‘role of the key account person or team in strategic alliances’ and ‘cross-functional roles and responsibilities and their impact on key account recruitment, training and assessment’, a clear recognition that research in these areas was scant but needed.

The evolving role of the account manager from key account sales to key strategic account manager

The term ‘key account management’ first gained currency in Europe in the 1990s (Kempeners 1997; McDonald and Rogers 1998; McDonald et al. 1997; Millman and Wilson 1995, 1996a; Pardo et al. 1993) but most of the literature focused upon KAM processes rather than upon the role of the account manager, with the tacit assumption, made by many, that the role was an extension of the sales role. McDonald et al. (1997) observed that most companies adopted a key account selling approach and, despite a growing literature on the process of strategic account management (SAM), many companies still assume the role to be primarily associated with sales and the increase in business volume won from major customers (Wilson and Woodburn 2014), using key account salespeople who operate in much the same way as traditional territory-based sales. They may have a number of accounts, with limited points of contact in any of them, and are focused on product sales. These are not the focus of this paper.

Our aim is to discuss the role of those account managers that operate in more complex inter-organizational environments and are concerned with problem resolution and value creation ‘beyond sales’, because the need for value-adding key account management approaches is increasingly evident (Wengler 2005). In order to differentiate them from key account salespeople we use the term key strategic account managers (ksam).

Millman and Wilson (1995, 1996a) were the first to highlight the importance of recognizing KAM as a management, not a sales, process and warned that many account managers were ill prepared for the wider and more demanding roles that take them into areas of business development, industry/market analysis, benchmarking, relationship management and so on.

Acknowledging the difficulty of separating organizational from managerial competencies, Millman and Wilson (1999) identified a top ten of global account management competencies. These contrasted interestingly with those skills seen to be highly valued at national account management level (see Table 1). These differences are not surprising in the light of the then newly emerging strategic importance of global account management (GAM), and the long history of national account management (NAM). The emphasis for national account managers (NAMS) was placed upon skills associated with traditional sales roles, the emphasis for global account managers (GAMS) widened to encompass skills more associated with general management.

While some practitioners may still view the ksam role as being primarily concerned with sales, this view is increasingly challenged as inadequate in light of increasing levels of competition and the demands placed upon suppliers by customers (Wengler 2007). Wengler also argues that research into the account management role must evolve beyond the confines of ‘the traditions of personal selling research’ and encompass the context of relationship management. The early distinctions between national, key and global account management are also challenged on the basis that they are different only in the degree of complexity imposed by internationality (Napolitano 1997), a view supported by Wilson et al. (2001) and one that we endorse now. However, there are differences in the role demanded of account managers that are reflected in the different relational ‘states’ that may exist between buyer and seller, and these are discussed later.

In his comprehensive review of the literature relating to key account management, Wengler (2005) devotes only one small section to the tasks of account management. He refers to the four tasks that must be performed by the account manager or account management teams identified by Diller (1989): informing, planning, coordinating and controlling, each with an internal and external aspect. This reflects a ‘Janus’ role performed by account managers or account teams (Kleintenkamp and Ricker 1997).

This highlights a fundamental difference between the role performed by salespeople and that performed by the key strategic account manager. We contest the idea that salespeople are boundary ‘spanners’; they are better likened to boundary ‘connectors’ in that they tend to have limited contact networks within the customer organization and rarely penetrate deeply. Direct contact within their own organization may also be shallow, limited to colleagues in similar roles and line management relationships. Contrast this with the true boundary-spanning role of the key strategic account manager who is expected to have multiple contacts within the client organization, spanning function (broad) and hierarchy (deep). Ksams must also reach back into their own organizations, not just to manage multi-functional ‘virtual’ teams but also to access resources and influence decisions impacting on client relationships. We contend that it is this boundary ‘spanning’ role, as opposed to the boundary ‘connecting’ role performed by traditional salespeople, that differentiates the role of key strategic account managers.

Factors that influence the nature of the role of the key strategic account manager

We propose that a number of interwoven factors influence the competency needs of ksams. The relational context, the degree of relational intensity, organizational complexity and cultural diversity, and the demands customers place on their strategic suppliers, all shape the nature of the multiple roles played by account managers and determine the competency requirements of both organizations and individual account managers.

Millman and Wilson (1996a), referring to their six-stage relational development model (Millman and Wilson 1995⁴), identified that both organizational and management competency requirements may depend upon the nature of the relationship that exists, or is intended to exist, between buyer and seller. In the early ‘states’ of key account development they suggested that companies can migrate some way along the relational development continuum by making only minor adaptations to their organizational infrastructure, but eventually a point is reached when major changes are required that transform rather than merely extend traditional organizational structures and processes.

Similarly, the competencies required of account managers may relate strongly to the traditional sales role in the early relational states but, as the role becomes increasingly embedded in complex networks of interaction, so the need to understand the organizational context as well as the characteristics of each participant becomes increasingly important, which has implications for the selection and development of key strategic account managers.

Later, Millman and Wilson (1996b) specifically address the changing role of kams together with an analysis of the inherent conflicts/ambiguities associated with their boundary-spanning role. They suggest that the growth in buyer–supplier partnerships has led to a need for industry and customer knowledge that they perceive as being much deeper than in the traditional sales role. They observe, referring to their 1995 article, that there was a general belief that KAM had its natural home in ‘sales’, but warned that if that belief were perpetuated there was a danger that kams would be perceived as merely ‘sales managers dealing with large customers’.

They also refer to the danger of promoting the best salespeople to KSAM roles and expecting them to ‘grow into the role’ of ‘farmer’ rather than ‘hunter’ salespeople. They challenged this practice, saying, ‘in our view, these changes are necessary for the sales role, but insufficient for the broader and more demanding role of key account manager’.

In discussing the changing role of the kam they noted that the kam operates within a network of other managerial activities, and that these existing structures make it difficult to initiate development of the kam role where it threatens the status quo and traditional power bases. Organizational complexity can also cause difficulty as there may be vast differences, for example, in the state of readiness to accept KSAM where organizations have many different divisions, countries and cultures. Even where the KSAM relationship seems to have reached a stable state which is developing mutual advantage, this can be adversely affected by such dynamics as acquisitions, mergers, strategic alliances, changing top-down edicts, imposition of systems, changes in personal/corporate alignments and changes in key personnel.

Clearly this early work recognized that the role of the kam was not the exten­sion of a sales role but a role requiring much higher levels of authority, status and reward. This view is supported by Millman and Wilson's (1996b) identification of the growing importance of managing the support for strategic customer and supplier relationships, often involving large numbers of people: even if they are not directly managed by the kam/gam, they are certainly orchestrated by them.

Gosselin and Heene (2003) also distinguish between key account selling and strategic account management. They suggest that strategic accounts are those where there is mutual recognition of the strategic importance of the relationship by both buyer and seller and further suggest that while both key account selling and key account management may be involved in the creation and delivery of value, strategic account management is also concerned with building the competencies upon which that value is based.

The political entrepreneur

The term ‘political entrepreneur’ first appeared in an IMP paper presented by Wilson and Millman (2000). It emerged from discussion following the Strategic Account Management Association/Sales Research Trust Global Account Management Research Study published later in the same year (Wilson et al. 2000) and owed much to the discussion of the role of global account manager presented by Croom et al. (1999). The account managers observed were entrepreneurial in the sense that they had the ability to recognize and realize the potential for innovation and value creation through the combination of existing inputs in the sense suggested by Schumpeter (2012). They realized value by combining the operational and core competencies of both buyer and seller (see Figure 1). Their political capabilities were observed in their understanding of how organizations worked and their ability to manage people and resources, and influence decisions through networking in both buyer and seller organizations.

Figure 1 The role of the political entrepreneur
Source: adapted from Wilson and Millman (2003)

Croom et al. (1999) identified three managerial roles performed by global account managers, which we consider to be equally applicable to all key strategic account managers, i.e. those of analyst, politician and entrepreneur. This theme was later elaborated upon in the Wilson and Millman papers (2000, 2003), where they explore the nature of boundary-spanning roles and identify the gam as per­forming a boundary-spanning role across two important interfaces – the internal interface between global and national account management, which is often embedded in the headquarters/subsidiary relationship, and the external interface between the selling company and the dispersed activities of the global account – thus recognizing what Kleintenkamp and Ricker (1997) subsequently identified as the ‘Janus’ nature of the key account manager role.

“In recognition of the need to navigate sensitive commercial/political aspects of these interface relationships, we have dubbed the global account manager as performing the role of Political Entrepreneur.”

(Wilson and Millman 2000)

To the three roles identified by Croom et al. (1999), a further role, that of coordinator, was added. These roles, while distinct, are not mutually exclusive, and the political entrepreneur (PE) can be expected to perform all these roles as the situation demands. This is a reflection of the overall ambiguity under which they operate.

In their role as analysts, PEs tend to be team-orientated trouble-shooters possessing outstanding knowledge of products/services, technologies and customer industries. Analysts perceive themselves primarily as international sales managers focusing on global sales targets, sales from regional/national territories and share of customer spend, rather than on opportunities for enhancing levels of value creation and customer profitability.

As politicians they combine diplomatic and linguistic skills with cultural empathy and knowledge of global business trends/opportunities. They engage their senior managers in the GAM process and are adept at achieving objectives via influence/persuasion, both in their own and in the customer organization.

As entrepreneurial strategists they are seen as looking beyond the immediate transactional exchange relationship to seek opportunities through the application of strategic and entrepreneurial skills that facilitate the synergistic realization of value by combining the core competencies of their own and the customer organization.

As coordinators, in order to achieve sales and relationship development targets, they perform the role not only of orchestrating the activities of the account support team but also of coordinating the operational capabilities of the supplier organization in order to align with customer systems and processes. This may be perceived as closer to a general management role than a sales role, albeit often with limited line authority.

The role of the PE is clearly a boundary-spanning role, performed at both the internal interface between corporate and local account management (embedded in the headquarters/subsidiary relationship) and at the external interface between the selling company and the dispersed activities of its strategic account. Political and entrepreneurial skills are applied at both these interfaces by this new breed of manager. The internal interface is where much of the gam's or ksam's ability to manage potential conflict/ambiguity depends on positive or negative perceptions of their mediating role, and thus where political skills may be of primary importance. Those political skills include the ability to walk the corridors of power, to know the people to speak to, the buttons to press and the strings to pull, in both their own organization and that of the customer. The external interface provides the forum within which both political and entrepreneurial skills may be applied (Croom et al. 1999; Wilson and Millman 2000, 2003).

The role of the PE is represented in Figure 1. It represents the main elements of the role and its contextual complexity. The importance of this model is that it presented the role of the ksam/gam as being concerned primarily with value creation rather than with the creation of sales.

First, as analyst, the ksam/gam identifies, through their intimate knowledge of customer, industry and process, not only opportunities for increased share of wallet but also the potential for creating process-related innovation in manufacturing, logistics and organizational interaction. As coordinator they manage the integration and realization of synergistic value arising from the operational capabilities of both buyer and seller.

As entrepreneurial strategist, the ksam/gam role is focused upon realizing entrepreneurial opportunity offered by accessing and using the combined core competencies of both organizations. The entrepreneur sees things that other people do not and acts upon those insights in order to create new value. Within the context of KSAM/GAM, the knowledge and resources from which entrepreneurial opportunity is created are the core competencies embedded in the relationship. At an operational level, the PE recognizes the potentials inherent in marrying the core competencies of both the buyer and seller teams to create process innovations that enhance the product/service offering by creating greater efficiencies within the supply chain. At a strategic level, the political entrepreneur sees opportunities to create entrepreneurial synergy from the core competencies of both organizations.

In both value-creation roles the ksam/gam must manage people over whom they may have no direct authority, certainly within the client organization and, more often than not, within their own. They must also gain access to resources which, unlike the general manager, they do not ‘own’, and be adept at influencing the decision-making process at senior managerial level in order to realize opportunity.

These ‘mega’ skills were refined into eight operational competencies (Wilson 2006, borrowing from Bradford and Minshul 2001): strategist, networker/influencer, change and delivery champion, team player/leader (reflecting the political elements of the role); business analyst, customer market expert, sales and profit enhancer, and innovative value creator (reflecting the entrepreneurial elements) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Political entrepreneur (PE) behaviours and competencies

The impact of contextual factors on the role of the political entrepreneur

Wilson and Millman (2000, 2003) and Wilson (2001) further explored the boundary-spanning role of the political entrepreneur and the impact of contextual factors upon the application of political and entrepreneurial skills, and how the application of those skills may be related to stages of relational development.

The demand for political capabilities and the opportunity to apply entrepreneurial skill, they suggest, is dependent upon the context within which the global buyer–seller relationship exists. The relational context is defined by the degree of organizational complexity and cultural diversity that surrounds the global relationship and by the degree of organizational interdependence and integration.

Where the customer operates in many different countries, where those operations include multiple functions and where the global account manager is required to have many multi-functional relationships at different levels within the client organization, then the organizational context may be perceived as highly complex. Conversely, where there are few touch points and penetration is low, the organizational context is low in complexity.

Where the organizational context is complex, there tend to be higher levels of political activity with divergent views, competing factional interests and different cultural perspectives influencing the global buyer–seller relationship. In order to operate effectively within this context, the global account manager must be capable of applying high levels of diplomacy, cultural sensitivity, networking and political skill.

Entrepreneurship is about using existing knowledge and resources to develop new and innovative opportunities for value creation. This is clearly dependent upon the closeness of the relationship and the degree of integration achieved by the account manager into both organizations.

The degree to which entrepreneurial skills can be exercised is dependent upon the global account manager's level of access to specialized knowledge about the resources of both their own organization and that of the client. If the global account manager is to be able to identify entrepreneurial opportunity they must have detailed knowledge of organizational, team and individual competencies, the resources of both organizations and a clear understanding of the strategic imperatives facing the client. Such knowledge (which allows the identification of the potential for problem resolution, process innovation and the creation of entrepreneurial value) grows as relationships evolve in terms of entanglement and interdependence. This in turn depends upon the level of organizational interdependence and integration. In other words, the closer the relationship, the more access there is to specialized knowledge and the more opportunity to exercise entrepreneurial skill (see Figure 3).

Figure 3 The impact of context on the role of the political entrepreneur

Figure 3 illustrates that where there are high levels of organizational complexity and cultural diversity, there is a strong need to exercise political skills (P). Where the organizational context is simple, then there is little need for political activity (p). Figure 3 also shows that the opportunity for exercising entrepreneurial skills varies depending upon the closeness of the buyer–seller relationship. Where the relationship is well developed, the entrepreneurial opportunities are high (E), where the relationship is new or under-developed, then those opportunities are low (e).

What this suggests is that different levels of political and entrepreneurial skill can be applied at different stages in the development of global relationships and other key strategic relationships. Figure 4 links varying levels of political and entrepreneurial behaviour to stages in the Millman–Wilson (1995) relational development model.

Figure 4 Linking PE behaviours and the relational development model
Source: Millman and Wilson (1995)

At pre-GAM to early GAM stages, there is a need to develop networks of contacts, to gain knowledge about the customer's operations and to begin to assess the potential for relational development. It is unlikely that concepts of value creation can go much beyond assessing the global client's need for the basic product–service offering of the supplier. At this stage, the organizational–cultural context is relatively simple and the relationship is poorly developed. The demand for political skills and the opportunity to apply entrepreneurial skills is low (pe).

From early to mid-GAM there is an increasing need for political skills to be applied as the potential of the account is identified, and the global account manager is called upon to ensure that the supplier's resources are configured to best serve the needs of the customer. Detailed knowledge of the global customer and their core competencies, the depth of the relationship and the potential for creating relationship-specific entrepreneurial value are all limited at this stage and the requirement is greater for political than entrepreneurial skill (Pe).

Mid- to partnership GAM may be characterized by the global account manager having developed a strong vertical and horizontal network of relationships within the client organization. As the relationship has developed in closeness, so the need to promote the client's interests within the selling company also recedes and political activity becomes less necessary for gaining access to resources and support.

As the relationship has developed, so has the knowledge about the account and, in order to consolidate or grow the relationship, further opportunities for joint value creation must be identified that go beyond the effective delivery of the global product/service offering. It is at this stage that entrepreneurial skill comes into play (pE), in terms of being able to recognize the potential for creating opportunities for value creation that address both the core competencies and the strategic interests of both buyer and seller. This stage is also pivotal in terms of the need to build a strong internal understanding of GAM and the need to develop processes and boundary-spanning activities that cut across the traditional silos present in many organizations.

Partnership and synergistic GAM increases the demand for political skill and the opportunity to apply entrepreneurial skills also increases. The closer the relationship, the greater is the opportunity to acquire knowledge of the customer and the greater the potential for creating entrepreneurial value. At the same time, the realization of entrepreneurial opportunity will involve fundamental changes in the way each organization operates and the need for political skills to drive those changes increases (PE).

At any stage in the relationship it may be necessary to disengage and uncoupling GAM/KSAM occurs. It is suggested that when this stage is reached the GAM/KSAM may need to apply high levels of political expertise (Pe) in order to extricate their company from the relationship at minimum cost.

One final point made by Millman and Wilson (1995) was that the relational development model was not intended to suggest that all relationships should, or can, develop through all stages. Some will never develop beyond the pre-GAM stage, others will rest in the early stages of mid- or partnership GAM and by their nature, very few will develop to synergistic GAM. This suggests that different relationships may allow for the deployment of GAMs/KSAMs with different levels of political and entrepreneurial skill.

The importance of the boundary-spanning role

Research by Holt (2001, 2003) took a dyadic approach to exploring the role of the GAM based on a boundary role theory perspective. A boundary position is defined by Kahn et al. (1964) as one which requires extensive interaction with people who occupy positions in another system, either another unit within the same organization or another organization altogether (Organ and Greene 1972). Boundary role theory (e.g. Kahn et al. 1964; Singh and Rhoads 1991; Spekman 1979) finds that those in boundary roles have to manage a number of different expectations, which in the GAM/KSAM context includes those of managers, co-workers and customers.

Organ (1971) also argues that these types of roles are strategically important for several reasons:

• It is through their behaviour that the organization adapts (or fails to adapt) to changes in the environment.
• It is through reports of the boundary spanners that other organization members acquire their knowledge, perceptions and evaluations of the organization's environments.
• It is through vigilance of these roles that the organization is able to monitor and screen important happenings in the environment.
• They function as ‘sensory organs’ for the organization.
  
  

Spekman (1979) extended Organ's largely one-sided view to include the ‘role sender’ aspect of the boundary spanner; an influence agent attempting to influence the decisions and behaviours of those individuals with whom they interact, both inter-organizationally and within their organization. This very much supports the political entrepreneur gam/ksam profile.

The empirical study by Holt (2003) involved interviewing gams, their customers, managers and their virtual team members, across a number of case study organizations from different industries, and found that the role of the gam was indeed that of a strategic boundary spanner. The final set of roles that emerged from this study is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 A boundary role theory perspective of the role of the global account manager
Source: Holt (2003)

There are strong similarities with the Wilson and Millman (2003) political entrepreneur model. A key contribution of the study by Holt (2003) was to firmly establish that a major part of the gam role is managing the internal interfaces. While this had been suggested in the literature and anecdotally, the inclusion of customer respondents, who articulated a number of key activities that they expected the gam to go back and facilitate in their own organization, finally established the legitimacy of the internal role of the gam.

Customer impact on the role

Holt's (2003) study also found that the gam role may be subject to change, depending on the degree of sophistication of the customer in global account relationships, and the degree of sophistication of the gam in the role, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 A typology of global account manager roles

Where the level of sophistication of the customer is high, and so is the level of the global account manager, then the gam is likely to be able to adopt the role of the global strategist. The gam would be operating at a very strategic level internally and externally, having a fully effective account team, be seeking business opportunities for both organizations, and be involved at senior management level with the customer and internally.

Where the sophistication of the gam is high but the level of sophistication of the customer organization is low, then the role of the gam is more likely to be that of the global relationship builder. The role here would be to build the relationship with the customer to a more strategic level. Activities might include developing some new opportunities to move the customer forward, building up some key relationships, helping to set up their teams, doing some consultancy, and facilitating meetings between the organizations at senior level.

Where the sophistication of the customer in GAM is high but the level of the GAM is low, then the role is more likely to be that of the global apprentice. As many customers are driving GAM, this type of situation is likely to exist, although the customer is not likely to be satisfied with it for long.

Finally, where the level of sophistication is low for both the customer organization and the global account manager, the GAM role is likely to be more of a global coordinator. In this role the GAM would be focused on coordinating the customer relationship, ensuring the operations and service delivery, building the internal teams and facilitating the contracts.

The study also suggested that the GAM role was becoming more like a managing director for the customer role rather than anything to do with transactional selling. It suggests that the GAM may yet evolve into a role that heads up a strategic business unit (SBU) with sole responsibility for a customer, rather than for a line of business or a product, as suggested conceptually in the literature (Homburg et al. 2000). One of the cases in the study was already taking this approach.

More recently, a small study by Li (2012) suggested that when looking at the competencies for kams, ksams and gams it made sense to divide the competencies and skills into those needed for the strategic selling part of the roles and those needed for the management part of the role. The more strategic the relationship, the more important the management part of the role becomes, with far less focus on the strategic selling part of the role. This study, therefore, also supports our conjectures in this paper.

The Strategic Account Management Association (SAMA), based in Chicago, USA, has also recently published some work in this area. The strategic account management core competencies identified by SAMA (2011) are not based upon a single research project but represent a synthesis of the accumulated body of research supported by SAMA over a number of years reflecting its members' collective and evolving views, which indicate considerable growth in the complexity of the role in recent times. Previously named the National Account Management Association (NAMA), the change of the name to SAMA also reflected the growing recognition of the strategic and complex nature of strategic account management. Indeed, SAMA has supplied much of the access to practitioners that has facilitated the work of researchers such as Millman and Wilson, and it has had a fundamental role in disseminating widely the output from such research.

‘While job requirements for Strategic Account Managers (aka ksam, kam, gam et al.) can vary among different businesses and industries, a number of core competencies, knowledge areas and skills are essential for strategic customer management in a majority of companies.’

(SAMA 2013)⁵

SAMA identifies five essential skill sets:

1. Understanding organizational priorities: customer orientation, company knowledge, industry knowledge and customer knowledge.

2. Strategic account and opportunity planning: strategic thinking, financial business acumen, value analysis and opportunity insight.

3. Joint solution development, co-creation and reaching agreement: communication and influencing skills, value co-creation, negotiation skills.

4. Multi-functional account team leadership: interpersonal relationship skills, team leadership, cultural knowledge and sensitivity.

5. Overall relationship and outcome management: responsible for corporate customer relationship, process discipline, accountability for business outcomes.

While not supported by direct reference to formal research, the views of SAMA conform broadly to the views we have presented here, placing much greater emphasis upon managerial skills than upon those related to personal selling. The position of SAMA as a major thought leader in the field, coupled with its support for research in the general field of account management, adds weight to its views.

In the next section we discuss the ramifications and implications from the above literature review.

Discussion

Our work has figured prominently in this paper and we make no apology for that, as there is little other research extant in the literature. What we would say is that although the work of Millman and Wilson and Holt has focused upon the role of the global account manager, the increasing strategic importance of all forms of account management leads us to the belief that their observations now hold true for many, though perhaps not all, occupying the role of account managers, be they key, strategic or global.

A major difference between key strategic account management and most other traditional managerial roles is that normally managers are charged with managing people and resources that are allocated to them. There are clear reporting structures and delineated responsibilities, which does not seem to be the case, certainly with gams and, we believe, increasingly with other ksams. They must manage people and resources over which they have no direct authority in conditions often redolent with ambiguity, and are charged with the realization of entrepreneurial value not often demanded of others. This, we believe, suggests the emergence of a new managerial role embodied in the concept of the boundary-spanning political entrepreneur and in our renaming the role as that of the key strategic account manager (ksam).

We suggest that these observations, together with the material we have presented in the main body of the text, hold significant implications for managers and offer considerable opportunity for future research.

Implications for researchers and a research agenda

The role of the key strategic account manager is still under-researched and even less understood by both academics and practitioners alike. The potential for research and the importance of understanding the multiple roles performed by key strategic account managers (and how they interface with other functions such as supply chain managers) is enormous. It is our view that this role is a model that will be used for the future management of inter-organizational relationships, not only of buyer–seller relationships but for a wide range of collaborative inter-organizational projects.

The work of Millman and Wilson, of Holt and others presented here suggests a framework (see Figure 7) that may provide the impetus for future academic endeavour, inform practitioners and help in facilitating the process of value co-creation beyond the concept of simple product or relational exchange.

Figure 7 A conceptual framework summarizing the role of the key strategic account manager

It is becoming increasingly clear that, with the emergence of networks of customer–supplier relationships and more complex supply chains, the role of the ksam will continue to evolve in its complexity and breadth of focus. For example, the role of ksams in the orchestration of supply chains requires further research.

The conceptual framework presented in Figure 7 summarizes the role of the key strategic account manager as both political entrepreneur and boundary spanner, as discussed in the literature, and suggests a number of contextual variables dealt with in the text that impact upon those roles. We propose that this conceptual framework should act as a starting point for a future research agenda. For example, research to test the validity of the roles, to understand the impact of intervening contextual factors and to explore the impact upon outcomes needs to be carried out using more positivist quantitative approaches than research studies have hitherto deployed. It is particularly important to research and understand the effects of the moderating factors shown in Figure 7, as these would appear to be the factors upon which the success or failure of KSAM programmes is dependent. Also the degree and level of importance of these factors needs to be determined. Research needs to be carried out on the relationships between the moderating factors and the outcomes.

Other key areas for the future research agenda include topics such as:

• The compensation and reward systems for ksams and their teams.
• Team structures and team leadership of KSAM teams.
• Competences of KSAM team members in complex customer relationships.
• The personal qualities that ksams need to do their role competently.

Conclusion

This paper has raised the importance of further researching the role and competences of the ksam, gam and kam. To date, there has been little research in this area and much of what has been done, while empirically sound, has been largely qualitative. A conceptual framework is presented from the extant literature that may act as the starting point for further, more rigorous academic research.

We believe that these roles will continue to evolve as companies move away from traditional buyer–supplier relationships to those involving multiple supply-chain relationships and networks, where all parties are seeking value and are more focused on co-creation of value and more collaborative ways of working. It is proposed that a new role has emerged in response to the changing nature of buyer–seller relationships, a role that is fundamentally different from that of a traditional salesperson, and that organizations need to recognize this if they are to be successful in managing their supply chains and networks in the future.