Job titles are becoming an increasingly unreliable way of identifying the people who influence major business-to-business purchasing decisions, as organisations spread authority across departments, locations and levels of seniority.
A recent analysis published by Quirk’s argues that researchers seeking B2B participants need to look beyond titles and examine what individuals actually do, where they sit within an organisation and how much influence they have over the particular purchase being studied.
The issue is particularly relevant to enterprise technology research, where two employees with seemingly similar IT responsibilities can have very different levels of authority. Brandspur Brand News reports that one technology executive may oversee strategy, approve major investments and carry responsibility for areas such as cybersecurity and digital transformation, while another IT manager may focus largely on equipment purchases, vendors and routine technical support.
Both individuals can be genuine decision-makers, but their relevance depends on the research question. A senior executive may have final approval over major technology investments, while a team member could be responsible for selecting and purchasing a specific product or service after authority has been delegated.
The situation can become more complicated when purchasing responsibilities are shared between regional teams, central corporate offices and procurement departments. In some organisations, a decision concerning a particular market may even be made by someone working in another country.
That means researchers cannot always assume that a participant’s physical location reflects the market for which they make decisions. Someone sitting outside a target country may still be responsible for purchasing decisions within it.
Organisational restructuring adds another layer of uncertainty. Roles, reporting lines and job titles can change frequently, particularly in technology businesses, meaning a research screener prepared months earlier may no longer accurately describe the people performing those functions.
For B2B researchers, the implications are significant. Recruitment criteria may need to establish not only a person’s industry and location, but also the size of their organisation, the markets they oversee, their authority in purchasing decisions, how long they have occupied their current role and whether the relevant purchasing activity is outsourced.
Researchers may also need to determine the size and frequency of purchases and establish how directly a potential participant works with the product or service under investigation.
The analysis notes that this makes B2B recruitment more demanding than simply searching for people with a particular title. A carefully designed screening process is needed to distinguish between someone who has general knowledge of a purchasing area and someone who has genuine responsibility or influence over the decision being researched.
The challenge is especially important for businesses relying on research to understand customers, purchasing behaviour and enterprise buying processes. Recruiting the wrong participant can produce insights that appear credible on the surface but fail to reflect how decisions are actually made inside an organisation.
The analysis also points to the growing role of data in identifying people who influence B2B decisions. Rather than relying solely on job titles or static lists of potential respondents, researchers are increasingly expected to establish the actual structure of decision-making before selecting participants.
For companies conducting B2B research, the central lesson is straightforward: identifying the right participant requires an understanding of responsibility and influence, not simply a matching title on a business card or email signature.
