Skip to content Sales & Marketing Alignment:
Sales & Marketing Alignment:
How Do I Resolve Conflicts Between Sales and Marketing in ABX?
Replace finger-pointing with a governed playbook. Use shared definitions, neutral data, clear SLAs & RACI, and a time-boxed dispute process—so ABX moves forward even when teams disagree.
Resolve ABX conflicts by codifying one set of rules (ICP, tiers, ownership, attribution), publishing SLAs for MQAs and follow-ups, running weekly account reviews with a shared dashboard, and enforcing a 48-hour dispute path (frontline → managers → RevOps) with decisions based on CRM evidence—not opinions.
First Principles for Resolving ABX Conflict
Decide once, document forever — Define ICP, account tiers, MQA criteria, ownership, and attribution in writing with version control.
Evidence over anecdotes — Use a neutral CRM/BI dashboard (touch logs, SLA timers, engagement scores) as the single source of truth.
Time-boxed escalations — 48-hour max to resolve disputes; unresolved issues auto-escalate to RevOps with decision rights.
Shared incentives — Add a pooled segment bonus so both teams benefit from target-account outcomes, not channel credit.
Retros that improve rules — Monthly review of conflicts to refine SLAs, criteria, and routing logic; publish change log.
Customer-first message — Align on an account narrative and approved plays; discourage off-book messaging that creates whiplash.
Your 90-Day ABX Conflict-Resolution Plan
Co-create with Sales, Marketing, RevOps, and CS. Start narrow, measure, then scale.
Phase 1 → Phase 2 → Phase 3
- Days 1–30: Define & Agree — Finalize ICP, tiers, MQA thresholds, ownership & attribution rules. Draft SLAs (first-touch, follow-ups, recycling). Publish RACI and a two-step escalation path. Set up shared dashboards.
- Days 31–60: Enable & Pilot — Train frontline on the playbook. Instrument SLA timers and reason codes. Pilot with one region/segment; hold weekly account reviews; track disputes and resolution time.
- Days 61–90: Enforce & Iterate — Roll out globally. Automate alerts for SLA breaches. Add quarterly retros; update rules via change control; link adherence to performance reviews and bonuses.
ABX Conflict Playbook (Scenarios, Rules, Evidence, Escalation)
| Conflict Scenario | Root Cause | Rule / What “Good” Looks Like | Evidence Required | Escalation Path |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Account ownership dispute | Overlapping territories or partner/outbound/inbound collisions | Territory + named-account list is authoritative; Tier 1 precedence; inbound off-target gets reassigned within 24h | Account tier, owner at time stamp, lead source, geo/segment mapping | Frontline → Managers (24h) → RevOps final (48h) |
| Attribution disagreement | Touch counting vs. deal influence ambiguity | Account-level model with time windows; Sales paid on revenue, Marketing on segment outcomes; no MQL volume payouts | Touch timeline, opportunity association, model settings | Ops analyst review → RevOps decision |
| MQA quality complaints | Loose criteria or misaligned ICP | MQA requires engagement + intent + fit; acceptance rate ≥80%; DQ reason codes mandatory | Score components, persona fit, sequence outcome | SDR lead + Marketing owner → RevOps |
| SLA breach (slow follow-up) | Capacity gaps or process friction | First touch ≤24h; 5-step sequence over 10 business days; auto-recycle if no touch | SLA timer logs, cadence completion, activity audit | Auto alert to manager; repeated breach → VP |
| Message misalignment | Off-book decks or conflicting value props | Single account narrative; approved play + asset IDs; feedback loop to content ops | Asset IDs used, call notes, progression impact | Content owner + Sales enablement → CMO/CRO tiebreak |
Ad Hoc Firefighting vs. ABX Governance (Quick Compare)
| Dimension | Ad Hoc Firefighting | ABX Governance |
|---|---|---|
| Decision Basis | Opinions, last-minute meetings | Written rules + CRM evidence |
| Speed to Resolution | Days/weeks | ≤48 hours with auto-escalation |
| Incentives | Channel credit, MQL volume | Team outcomes on named accounts |
| Learning Loop | None; repeat issues | Monthly retros + change log |
| Rep Experience | Unclear, inconsistent | Predictable, fair, auditable |
Client Snapshot: From Turf Wars to Team Wins
A global B2B tech firm deployed a two-step dispute SOP, SLA timers, and a shared ABX dashboard. In 90 days, average dispute time dropped from 9.2 days to 36 hours, MQA acceptance rose to 84%, and pipeline velocity in Tier 1 accounts improved 19%.
Anchor your rules in RM6™ and connect account plays to The Loop™ so process, data, and incentives reinforce alignment.
Frequently Asked Questions about Resolving ABX Conflicts
Clear answers you can paste into your playbook.
Who has final decision rights in a conflict?
RevOps (or a CRO-appointed arbiter) makes the final call using written rules and CRM evidence. Their decision updates the playbook and change log.
How do we prevent the same conflict from recurring?
Require reason codes on disputes, run a monthly retro to spot patterns, and update SLAs/criteria via change control. Communicate changes in release notes.
What metrics prove conflict resolution is working?
Dispute volume per 100 opps, median resolution time, MQA acceptance rate, SLA adherence, and velocity changes in Tier 1 accounts.
How should we handle edge cases or strategic exceptions?
Allow exceptions with CRO/CMO joint approval and an expiration date. Document the rationale and impact in the playbook appendix.
What tools do we need?
CRM with ownership/tier fields and SLA timers, MAP for engagement scoring, BI for shared dashboards, and a lightweight intake form for disputes.
Publish Your ABX Dispute Playbook in 30 Days
We’ll codify rules, wire dashboards, and train managers—so conflicts resolve fast and target accounts keep moving.
Get the Playbook Built Assess AlignmentGet in touch with a revenue marketing expert.
Contact us or schedule time with a consultant to explore partnering with The Pedowitz Group.