Building alignment between the person, the job requirements, and the organizational context is essential for marketing chiefs to thrive
Writing Kimberly Whitler
When a senior executive underperforms, the typical responses are predictable: place them on a development plan, rotate their role or dismiss them. But what if the struggling leader is the chief marketing officer (CMO) – the individual responsible for driving revenue growth? Too often, the problem isn’t the person but the role itself.
A new study in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, co-authored by Lopo Rego (Kelley School of Business), Neil Morgan (Wisconsin School of Business), and me, reveals that 54% of CMO roles are poorly designed. Expectations often clash with responsibilities and success metrics, making it difficult for companies to design the CMO role effectively. It’s therefore not surprising that CMOs have the highest turnover rate in the C-suite: nearly a third of the companies in our data set had three or more CMOs within 10 years. Such chronic turnover suggests that many companies don’t have a CMO problem: they have a CMO role-design problem.
Setting the stage
At the heart of our research is a deceptively simple question: What exactly is a CMO supposed to do?
If we examine the role through the lens of role theory – a sociological framework borrowed from theater – the issue becomes clearer. Every job, like a part in a play, has three components: the role itself, the individual in that role, and the surrounding environment. A mismatch can doom even the most talented actor. In the C-suite, that mismatched role is often the CMO.
To map this complexity, we developed the first conceptual model for CMO Role Design, identifying three interconnected layers.
1. CMO role characteristics This layer includes person-based characteristics – such as the candidate’s competencies, background, experience and education – and position-based characteristics that define the structural boundaries of the job: what the CMO is expected to do, what resources they are given, how much authority they have, and what they are accountable for.
2. Contextual factors This layer includes both internal factors (such as company strategy, structure and culture) and external factors (such as market dynamics and regulatory constraints), as well as considerations such as whether the CMO is part of the executive team, whether they attend board meetings, and CMO turnover.
3. Consequences The consequences include brand equity, customer relationships and overall firm performance.
Consider a cinematic analogy. Sean Connery became the archetypal James Bond because his style and experience matched the role. However, even an actor as great as Connery wasn’t suited for every film part. His performance in the poorly reviewed 2012 animated comedy Sir Billi shows that success depends as much on fit as on talent. Context is also vital: some Bond films succeed due to strong villains, clever plots or charismatic performances that are lacking in other titles.
The lesson is clear: success comes from the alignment of person, role and context, for film stars as for CMOs. The attributes of the position and the person must align – yet too often they don’t, like a square peg and a round hole.
The influence of status
One important contextual factor is the CMO’s status within the executive suite. Status matters because CMOs rarely act alone – success depends on collaboration with finance, product and operations departments. Higher status helps them influence decisions and coordinate across teams; lower status risks marginalization.
However, more status is not always better. When the role is well designed and aligned, added status amplifies impact. When it isn’t, higher status can backfire, worsening the mismatch between responsibility and experience.
Getting CMO role design right
What can chief executives, executive recruiters and candidates do to prevent these missteps? We have developed a practical set of tools to improved role alignment (see ‘Set Up to Fail’, MIT Sloan Management Review, summer 2022).
Note that the problems of role design are not exclusive to CMOs. When we examined 185 job specifications for CFO, CIO and CMO roles, we found widespread misalignment between expectations, authority and skills. In 41% of cases, requirements did not match candidate qualifications – and in over a third, responsibilities conflicted with the experience sought.
To address this disconnect we created the Job Alignment Map, a tool for crafting more effective job specifications and evaluating whether an existing role is well designed. It concentrates
on six elements.
1. Expectations – the organizational outcomes the role should deliver
2. Required responsibilities – the authority needed to meet those expectations
3. Assigned responsibilities – whether they match those required to meet expectations
4. Required skills – the skills, experience and training needed to succeed in the role
5. Skills listed – whether the job specification reflects those requirements
6. Performance measures – the indicators used to assess progress towards expectations.
The Job Alignment Map can help leaders – and candidates – determine if a role is set up for success or destined to fail. For example, if a CMO is asked to “drive the growth agenda” but lacks authority over strategy, product, pricing or sales, it’s a warning sign. Recruiters can use it to match responsibilities with expectations, while CMOs can clarify performance metrics or negotiate scope before accepting a role.
Any aspiring CMO should avoid relying solely on the job spec – it’s often sales material. Instead, ask the CEO about responsibilities, success measures, structure, budget and team to ensure the role is properly set up for your success in the organization.
The research is clear: misaligned CMO roles can derail marketing effectiveness – and careers. Organizations and marketing leaders alike are well advised to focus on CMO role design.
Kimberly Whitler is the Frank M Sands Sr professor of business administration at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business
