I work in an related field, and I actually like marketing driven. One of my clients is currently experiencing a bit of a political turf war between "marketing" and "engineering". There are valid reasons for the position of both sides, but the relevant point is that without being Marketing (Customer) driven, companies just don't succeed. I know the technology and what is possible far better, but Marketing knows the customer, and are motivated by a keen self interest to get things out that customers want, and more importantly, will pay for. The independent Engineering efforts have been technically quite interesting in several ways, but customers either didn't really want what it would do, it was priced out of the market value assessment, or the customers just were not prepared to understand how to apply it to their needs. And so they fail. Of course the political climate dictates that marketing is less motivated in selling just for spite, but that's balanced somewhat because that's how they get paid, so that's a different issue. And marketing has to be constrained by realities of product development that they may (won't) like when it affects delivery of their next favorite goal. So, it gets complicated...
IMO, and experience, that's just a natural give and take balance of forces that (hopefully) leads to optimal results. The real overriding problem comes from 2 specific but related areas. The first is myopic Harvard formula MBAs (as evolved mostly during the 80s). Those whose long term planning extends no further than next quarters reports (they will say otherwise, but practical actions indicate otherwise), where capital investment is a sin to be delayed until the next quarter as long as is possible (note I did not say "as long as reasonable"). Those folks are only interested in their bonuses, and couldn't care less if a year later the entire company wll be tanked with all employees losing their jobs (or pensions, or degraded health insurance, or...). All that matters is they meet their quarterly goals and get their bonuses. After all, they'll have insider knowledge that things are falling apart and will cash out before going to gut the next company. They are then labeled a success in spite of gutting a successful company, and get hired by a Board composed of their peers at another company. They used to call the most evolved form "Corporate Raiders", but that mentality has become the norm for most companies (Danaher, IBM, etc). The other problem generally results from the first in that the MBAs put "bean counters" in key controlling positions to make sure that those quarterly goals are met by any means necessary. Including insisting that critical parts be sourced from the cheapest bidder (or generally outsourced) regardless of consequences (which won't impact the spreadsheets till next quarter or later!). Sometimes the bean counters exist on their own and for their own reasons, but the ones deserving of the name are usually motivated from above. But even though I feel mostly true, that's an over simplification as it's all much more complicated, and a successful company has to display some of those traits to be successful. The problem is that "enlightened self interest" combined with egos tends to produce outcomes that follow that pattern far too often.
Master Floor Sweeper