Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Day
Keywords: marketing organization, capabilities, structure, culture, marketing leaders, marketing talent, marketing
metrics, marketing strategy, rm performance
ver the past 25 years, there has been much progress in human capital, and culturethat play the most important role
What are the role and impact of Why is marketings cross-functional role so mixed? Does research account for coopetition, the impact at each stage of the process, and the
marketing in cross- use of informants from different functions?
functional relationships? As organizations perform more work using electronic tools and geographically dispersed teams, how will these new cross-functional
structures affect marketings contributions?
How should digital and data specialists be integrated with marketing and with other functions of the rm? What structures facilitate optimal
decision making so that these technical specialties help the company serve its customers more protably and not serve the specialties
focused interests?
How should rms organize and How should marketing and sales cooperate across the solution funnel?
coordinate marketing and How do marketing and sales cooperate effectively using these new digital and omnichannel strategies?
sales? What are the most effective leadership strategies for coordinating marketing and sales?
Does outsourcing marketing What is the impact of outsourcing marketing activities on rm performance?
affect rm performance? What structural, legal, and relational approaches are most effective in managing high-dependency partnerships for new skills in social
media and digital?
How does outsourcing as cocreation affect the novelty, speed, and effectiveness of marketing strategies?
How do rms protect their strategies and knowledge from spilling over to competitors when outsourcing?
Does a customer-based How does the transition from a product structure to a customer structure inuence rm performance?
organizational structure What is the most effective approach to transition to a customer-based organizational structure?
affect rm performance? What is the impact of rm, industry, leader, and strategy factors in the transition to a customer-based structure?
What is the impact of What training tools (in person, computer-mediated, gamication, etc.) and training modes (experiential, case-based, lecture, etc.) work best
marketing training? in what situations and for which marketing employees?
What individual factors moderate the effect of marketing training?
How does training affect outcomes such as sales force hiring and turnover?
How does the management of How do strategies reecting different psychological, organizational, economic, and structural mechanisms work together to inuence FLE
frontline employees (FLEs) performance?
affect customers and rm What role does the rms top marketing leader play in FLEcustomer interactions?
performance?
What is the impact of employee Is it employee satisfaction or the type of employee who is attracted to work for a certain type of rm that is responsible for the FLEperformance effect?
satisfaction on rm Does employee satisfaction inuence extra-role and stewardship behaviors, burnout, and customer informationsharing behaviors?
performance? Are employees more satised when they work for a rm with a strong brand? Does satisfaction inspired by brand produce different
behaviors than satisfaction inspired by connection to a specic job or to the larger rm culture?
Designing
Anticipation
Culture Adaptation
Intermediate
Marketing Outcomes
Customer equity
Brand equity
Configuration
Structure
Resourcing
Capabilities Attraction
Metrics use Firm Outcomes
Incentives/controls Asset Management
Product market
Implementing Accounting
Assessing Alignment Financial market
Societal
Accountability Activation
(Human)
Capital
Leaders
Employees
Direct effect
Feedback effect
and these activities is underdeveloped, which suggests future Marketing Capabilities for Marketing
research opportunities.
Although the core of the model in Figure 1 is the
Excellence
MARKORG 7As rm performance path, we show This lens on marketing excellence focuses on the bundles
additional linkages to capture the dynamic and iterative of marketing skills and accumulated knowledge, exercised
nature of the process. For example, although the effec- through organizational processes, that enable a rm to carry
tiveness of MARKORG can enable or constrain the 7As, out its marketing activities. The concept of capabilities1 came
there is also an important learn by doing feedback loop to the fore in the eld of strategic management in the mid-
in which the successful (unsuccessful) deployment of the 1980s under the rubric of the resource-based view (RBV)
7As leads to strengthening (weakening) MARKORG. Positive of the rm (Wernerfelt 1984). In this view, rm resources
feedback from performance outcomes nourishes MARKORG include both assets and capabilities that are cultivated slowly
through reinvestment and afrmation; conversely, negative over time. Managements task is to determine how best to
feedback may damage these marketing organization elements. develop, leverage, and improve these resources for com-
Likewise, rm performance reecting the presence of customer petitive advantage. The development of the RBV paralleled
equity and brand equity, both intermediate marketing outcomes, an emerging consensus within marketing that the rms market
can be further developed and deployed in the resourcing of orientation is the coordinated application of interfunctional
the marketing strategy process. Finally, just as MARKORG is resources to create superior customer value (Kohli and Jaworski
nested in the larger rm, the marketing strategy process is part 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). Day (1994) proposed specic
of the larger, rm-level strategy process, which inuences how capabilities to be mastered by a market-driven organization
the marketing strategy process unfolds. and Hunt and Morgan (1995, 1996) formulated a resource-
Marketing excellence is a continuous process that leaves advantage theory to counter the constraining assumptions
no room for complacency. It requires marketing leaders who of perfect competition theory. Today, the RBV continues to
can orchestrate the rms capabilities, culture, employees, play a prominent role in the marketing literature (Kozlenkova,
structure, metrics, incentives, and controls so that the entire Samaha, and Palmatier 2014).
rm continuously responds and adapts to marketplace chal- We review what is known and still needs to be known
lenges in a superior manner. Together, MARKORG and the about marketing capabilities by addressing ve questions: (1)
7As offer a new frontier for the study of marketing excellence What are marketing capabilities? (2) How are they measured?
that provides research-based evidence for investments in
marketing excellence. The research priorities outlined for 1For this review, we use capabilities and competencies inter-
each MARKORG element, its integration, and the impact changeably. Core capabilities are a subset of capabilities found at the
of MARKORG on the 7As offer future directions for the corporate level. Distinctive capabilities make a disproportionate
study of organizing for marketing excellence. contribution to the rms competitive advantage.
Sustained
Competitive
Advantage
Build experience
and climb the
Integrate to create
learning curve
complementarities
Embed in formal
and informal
organizational
processes
Build knowledge
and skills (train, Makes capabilities
hire, partner, difficult to imitate
or acquire)
Identify
predictive Ensures
knowledge capabilities create
and skills superior value
managements emphasis on the customer, (2) a high degree of types of value it will offer customers. Research should consider
interdepartmental connectedness, (3) a low (high) level of how rms make such decisions and how much they are driven
organization centralization and formalization for information by rm objectives, competitors actions, or consultants advice.
acquisition and dissemination (information responsiveness), In the second stage, the rm builds the required knowledge
and (4) the use of metrics and incentives to reward employees and skills through training, hiring, partnering, and/or acquisition
for market-oriented behaviors. Ruekert (1992) was the rst to (Capron and Hulland 1999). To our knowledge, training for
add the importance of market-oriented training to the devel- marketing capabilities has not been addressed in the literature
opment of market orientation capabilities. Meta-analysis sup- at all. This is an important gap given Ahearne et al.s (2010)
ports the role of these factors (Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden nding that salespeople with a learning orientation are more
2005). Feng, Morgan, and Rego (2015) adds that a strong successful at adopting a new customer relationship system
marketing function inuences the quality of a rms capabilities than salespeople with a performance orientation. Likewise,
for developing and leveraging market-based assets. although we know that rms can develop new knowledge
A second approach emphasizes sustained competitive from network partners (Banerjee, Prabhu, and Chandy 2015;
advantage and increasing the inimitability of capabilities. Johnson, Sohi, and Grewal 2004), research in marketing has
These principles, which are drawn directly from research on not carefully addressed the process of partnering for digital,
the RBV of the rm, are often evoked as reasons why rms social, and mobile capabilities (see the Does Outsourcing
should invest in capabilities and why capabilities are a cen- Marketing Affect Firm Performance? subsection).
tral part of business performance (Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, Later stages embed the new knowledge and skills into
and Fahy 1993). Research has suggested that rms can learn organizational processes (Grewal and Slotegraaf 2007;
new capabilities by benchmarking against successful com- Srivastava, Shervani, and Fahey 1999) and link the emerging
petitors (Vorhies and Morgan 2005)3 and by indirect or ob- capability to other capabilities (Dierickx and Cool 1989)
servational learning of competitors practices (Banerjee, Prabhu, both of which hinder competitor imitation. The nal stage
and Chandy 2015). accumulates experience, which drives down costs, improves
effectiveness, and protects the rm from rivals. This idea is an
Future research priorities. Figure 2 depicts the process important part of the strategy literature; however, whether it
for developing superior marketing capabilities that we use to holds for marketing capabilities has never been investigated.
outline future research opportunities. The process begins by
identifying which knowledge and skills are important to the How Are Marketing Capabilities Changed?
rms success. This understanding should come from careful
consideration of the position the rm wants to occupy and the There is an inevitable gap between the accelerating com-
plexity of markets moving at Internet speed and the ability
3Importantly, although rms that perform closer to the industry of even the most agile of rms to keep up. This is the province of
benchmarks are identied by their superior performance, research dynamic capabilities that reect the rms ability to integrate,
has not identied whether using the benchmarking process leads to build and recongure internal and external competences to
superior capabilities. address rapidly changing environments (Teece, Pisano, and
10Other research in marketing has separated values and norms as 11This meta-analysis includes market-oriented culture (Narver
distinctive forms of culture that should be measured independently and Slater 1990) and market-orientation processes/capabilities
(Homburg and Pesser 2000). (Jaworski and Kohli 1993).
Build effective
informal and formal
learning mechanisms
dampen rm innovation because customers are unable to Second, Tony Hsieh (2010, p. 15), the CEO of Zappos,
describe unmet needs or because it induces a narrow focus has stated, Your culture is your brand. The idea that culture
on current customers (Christensen 1997). can produce powerful market-based assets, such as brands, is
not a controversial idea. However, no research has demon-
Future research priorities. First, the term customer- strated this connection empirically.
centricity has increasingly supplanted market orientation Third, the literature on market-oriented culture has not
when referring to culture. In this view, less consideration is considered how the rm serves both its business-to-business
given to the competitor orientation as a feature of market- partners and its ultimate end consumers. It ignores this dual-
oriented culture (Narver and Slater 1990). Does this de-emphasis customer status and has not addressed how rms can keep their
endanger the performance effects of market-oriented culture, cultures focused on both customers to maximize performance.
or does it unleash an even stronger performance effect? Both Fourth, a key challenge in this area is separating the performance
outcomes are possible. On the one hand, a lack of focus on impact of culture from other contributing forces, such as the
competitors might mean the rm loses sight of its differ- leaders who help create it and the strategy that carries its values,
entiation from competitors or is eclipsed by competitors norms, and artifacts. To that end, a longitudinal view of culture
leapfrogging ahead. On the other hand, a weaker emphasis and other contributing factors may provide insights into the
on competitors may enable rms to give full attention to distinctive role of culture on rm performance.
serving their customers (Rindeisch and Moorman 2003).
As Jeff Bezos (2009) noted, When given the choice of
obsessing over customers or obsessing over competitors, How Should Firms Build and Sustain a Market-
we always obsess over customers. We pay attention to what Oriented Culture?
our competitors do but its not where we put our energy. Leadership commitment and behavior modeling are crucial
Its not where we get our motivation from. to any change initiative. Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry
Attraction Activities
How Does MARKORG Inuence the A handful of studies have examined how the MARKORG
Assessment of Marketing Strategy? elements are successfully mobilized and deployed to attract
resources. Research has shown that experienced marketing
Accountability Activities leaders help attract rm venture capital funding (Homburg
Marketing strategies emerge from a continuous learning et al. 2014) and that customer and competitor orientations
process, with the assessment stage signaling the end of one inuence initial public offering outcomes (Saboo and Grewal
cycle and a look ahead to the next development cycle. The 2013), while rms with stronger brands attract higher-quality
bridge to the next cycle is a monitoring and control system to employees (Luo and Homburg 2007) at lower pay (Tavassoli,
compare the realized performance with objectives and to Sorescu, and Chandy 2014), and rms with strong relational
learn what needs to change in the future. This process capabilities attract good partners (Johnson, Sohi, and Grewal
involves accountability activities that manage responsi- 2004).
bility for rm performance. MARKORG has important
Future research priorities. It is difcult for external
effects on this aspect of strategy through conguration
audiences such as potential investors, partners, and employees
elements, including building a strong marketing function
to fully appreciate the value of a rms MARKORG. Which
(Verhoef and Leeang 2009), through the use of incentive
signals of rm marketing organization prowess should a rm
and control systems that inuence decision-making criteria
send to outside stakeholders to increase its attractiveness as an
(Hauser, Simester, and Wernerfelt 1994), and through the
investment (see Moorman et al. 2012), employer, and partner?
use of metrics that offer performance feedback information
What criteria do stakeholders use to evaluate the quality of
(Mintz and Currim 2013).
MARKORG and decide whether to engage the rm? Attract-
Future research priorities. First, research has shown ing internal resources is also critical because it endorses the
that telling managers they will be called on for their opinions importance of the function and improves the odds that marketing
leads them to emphasize information that is more acceptable activities will succeed. Yet little is known about how individual,
to their superiors rather than the most accurate information organizational, and inuence-strategy factors predict a marketing
(Brown 1999); thus, accountability is likely to require a more leaders success in attracting resources within the rm.
nuanced approach. What structural and cultural elements
play a supporting role in furthering accountability? Second, Asset Management
with regard to structure, how should accountability for cross- MARKORG inuences asset management. Market orienta-
functional activities be shared to maximize marketing tion capabilities facilitate strong customer relationships and
excellence? Third, managers and employees are likely to vary
in terms of the extent to which they are responsible for and are 13Intermediate rm performance outcomes, such as customer and
motivated by accountability. Vetting candidates for this trait brand equity, then reenter the process for use in future cycles of the
should boost rm accountability. Fourth, how should marketing strategy process.
REFERENCES
Achrol, Ravi S. (1991), Evolution of the Marketing Organization: Conceptual Model and Research Propositions, Journal of
New Forms for Turbulent Environments, Journal of Marketing, Marketing, 57 (October), 8399.
55 (October), 7793. Bitner, Mary Jo (1992), Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical
Ahearne, Michael, Son K. Lam, John E. Mathieu, and Willy Surroundings on Customers and Employees, Journal of Mar-
Bolander (2010), Why Are Some Salespeople Better at keting, 56 (April), 5771.
Adapting to Organizational Change? Journal of Marketing, Bolton, Lisa E. (2003), Stickier Priors: The Effects of Nonanalytic
74 (May), 6579. Versus Analytic Thinking in New Product Forecasting, Journal
Anderson, Erin (2008), The Salesperson as Outside Agent or of Marketing Research, 40 (February), 6579.
Employee: A Transaction Cost Analysis, Marketing Science, Boyd, Eric D., Rajesh Chandy, and Marcus Cunha Jr. (2010),
27 (1), 7084. When Do Chief Marketing Ofcers Affect Firm Value? A
Andrews, Jonlee and Daniel C. Smith (1996), In Search of the Customer Power Explanation, Journal of Marketing Research,
Marketing Imagination: Factors Affecting the Creativity of 47 (August), 116276.
Marketing Programs for Mature Products, Journal of Mar- Brown, Christina L. (1999), Do the Right Thing: Diverging Effects
keting Research, 33 (May), 17487. of Accountability in a Managerial Context, Marketing Science,
Armstrong, J. Scott and Fred Collopy (1996), Competitor Orientation: 18 (3), 23046.
Effects of Objectives and Information on Managerial Decisions and Bucklin, Randolph E. and Sunil Gupta (1999), Commercial Use of
Protability, Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (May), 18899. UPC Scanner Data: Industry and Academic Perspectives,
Arthur, Lisa (2012), Five Years from Now, CMOs Will Spend Marketing Science, 18 (3), 24773.
More on IT than CIOs Do, Forbes, (February 8), (accessed Capron, Laurence and John Hulland (1999), Redeployment of
February 14, 2015), [available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ Brands, Sales Forces, and General Marketing Management
lisaarthur/2012/02/08/ve-years-from-now-cmos-will-spend- Expertise Following Horizontal Acquisitions: A Resource-Based
more-on-it-than-cios-do]. View, Journal of Marketing, 63 (April), 4154.
Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku (2005), Resolving the Capability: Rigidity Carson, Stephen J. (2007), When to Give Up Control of Outsourced
Paradox in New Product Innovation, Journal of Marketing, New Product Development, Journal of Marketing, 71 (Jan-
69 (October), 6183. uary), 4966.
Banerjee, Sourindra, Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Rajesh K. Chandy Chakravarty, Anindita, Alok Kumar, and Rajdeep Grewal (2014),
(2015), Indirect Learning: How Emerging-Market Firms Grow in Customer Orientation Structure for Internet-Based Business-to-
Developed Markets, Journal of Marketing, 79 (January), 1028. Business Platform Firms, Journal of Marketing, 78 (September),
Barwise, Patrick and Sean Meehan (2011), Beyond the Familiar: 123.
Long-Term Growth Through Customer Focus and Innovation. Challagalla, Goutam, Brian R. Murtha, and Bernard Jaworski
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. (2014), Marketing Doctrine: A Principles-Based Approach
Bergen, Mark, Shantanu Dutta, and Orville C. Walker Jr. (1992), to Guiding Marketing Decision Making in Firms, Journal of
Agency Relationships in Marketing: A Review of the Impli- Marketing, 78 (July), 420.
cations and Applications of Agency and Related Theories, , R. Venkatesh, and Ajay K. Kohli (2009), Proactive
Journal of Marketing, 56 (July), 124. Postsales Service: When and Why Does It Pay Off? Journal of
Bezos, Jeff (2009), Video from Jeff Bezos about Amazon and Marketing, 73 (March), 7087.
Zappos, (accessed on June 13, 2016), [available at https://www. Chan, Kimmy Wa and Echo Wen Wan (2012), How Can Stressed
youtube.com/watch?v=-hxX_Q5CnaA]. Employees Deliver Better Customer Service? The Underlying
Bharadwaj, Sundar G., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and John Fahy (1993), Self-Regulation Depletion Mechanism, Journal of Marketing,
Sustainable Competitive Advantage in Service Industries: A 76 (January), 11937.
WEB APPENDIX
involves much more than databases, analytics, and information technology, and comprises activities ranging from
prospecting to tracking the costs of retention to up-selling and cross-selling.
- Morgan, Slotegraaf, and Vorhies (2009): Define a firms customer relationship management capability as the firms ability
to identify attractive customers and prospects, initiate and maintain relationships into customer-level profits. Measures are
taken relative to competitors and include, for example, identifying and targeting attractive customers, maintaining loyalty
among attractive customers, and enhancing the quality of relationships with attractive customers.
Channel and alliance management capabilities
- Day (1994): Channel bonding is firm knowledge and skills at creating tight working connections with key channel
partners.
- Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp (1998): Firms vary in their punitive capabilities, defined as the ability to use intentional acts
to inflict negative consequences on partners.
- Selnes and Sallis (2003): Measure a firms relationship learning capability, defined as an ongoing activity between
customers and suppliers that shares, makes sense of, and integrates acquired information into a shared memory that improves
the range or likelihood of potential relationship-specific behaviors.
- Johnson, Sohi and Grewal (2004): Argue for the presence of a relational capability by examining the effect of interactional,
functional, and environmental knowledge stores on the quality of a firms interorganizational relationships.
- Swaminathan and Moorman (2009): A firms (partners) marketing alliance capability reflects its ability to create value from
previous marketing alliances.
Brand management capabilities
- Morgan, Slotegraaf, and Vorhies (2009): Define a firms brand management capability as the ability to create and maintain
high levels of brand equity and to deploy this resource in ways that are aligned with the market environment. Measures are
taken relative to competitors and include, for example, using customer insights to identify valuable brand positioning,
establishing desired brand associations in customers minds, and achieving high levels of brand awareness in the market.
- Although the connection to a brand management capability is not established, research examines brand equity (Keller 1993;
Aaker and Jacobson 1994) and the performance effects of various brand-related activities related to cobranding (Cao and
Sorescu 2013), brand portfolio management (Morgan and Rego 2009), and brand acquisitions and disposals (Wiles, Morgan
and Rego 2012) that likely reflect presence of brand management capabilities.
Other specialized marketing capabilities
- Dutta, Zbaricki and Bergen (2003): Define and document the presence of firm pricing capabilities, which reflect knowledge
and skills that create and appropriate value.
- Mizik and Jacobson (2003): Define value appropriation capability as the firms ability to differentiate its offerings and
measure it by examining companies advertising expenditures. Findings indicate that a value appropriation capability has a
positive effect on a firms stock returns.
3
- Vorhies and Morgan (2005): Measure pricing, product development, channel management, marketing communication, and
selling capabilities.
- Challagalla, Venkatesh, and Kohli (2009) identify the presence of proactive post-sales service capability comprised of
proactive prevention, proactive education, and proactive feedback seeking activities.
Other strategic marketing capabilities
- Vorhies and Morgan (2005): Measure marketing planning and marketing implementation capabilities (see also Morgan,
Vorhies and Mason 2009).
- Morgan (2012): Defines four sets of marketing capabilities: specialized (see Vorhies and Morgan 2005), cross-functional
(brand management, customer relationship management, and new product development), architectural (strategic market
planning, including segmentation, targeting, and positioning and marketing strategy implementation), and dynamic (market
learning, resource reconfiguration, and capability enhancement).
- Feng, Morgan, and Rego (2015): A firms long-run market-based asset building capability is the firms ability to use
available resources to build and maintain its market-based assets and a firms short-run market-based asset leveraging
capability is the firms ability to use its resources to generate short-term cash flows from its current market-based assets.
- Measure spending: Mizik and Jacobson (2003) examine the firms strategic emphasis on a value creation capability (as
measured by R&D spending) relative to a value appropriation capability (as measured by advertising spending).
- Measure effects of spending: Moorman and Slotegraaf (1998) measure a firms marketing capability through its market
share. Johnson, Sohi, and Grewal (2004) argue for the presence of a firms relational capability by measuring the effect of its
interactional, functional, and environmental knowledge stores (which house capabilities) on the performance of a firms
relationship portfolio and the quality of its relationships.
How are
- Measure the effectiveness of converting inputs to outputs: Dutta, Narasimhan, and Surendra (1999) measure marketing
marketing
capabilities and other measures for operations and R&D capabilities (see also Narasimhan, Rajiv, and Dutta 2006).
capabilities
- Survey/Interview key informants: Reinartz, Krafft, and Hoyer (2004) measure a firms CRM processes by surveying senior
measured?
executives. Challagalla, Venkatesh, and Kohli (2009) interview managers across industries to identify a proactive post-sales
service capability.
- Benchmark the firm against competitors: Firm and competitor scores on capabilities can be derived from any of the
aforementioned approaches. Vorhies and Morgan (2005) provide overview of choices firms need to make in this process,
including the number of comparison firms, whether the comparison firms should be in the firms industry or pursuing a
similar strategy, and whether or not they should be top-performing firms (see also Kabadayi, Eyuboglu, and Thomas 2007).
What is the - Jaworski and Kohli (1993): A firms market orientation capabilities have a positive effect on its overall business
contribution of performance.
marketing - Dutta, Narasimhan, and Rajiv (1999): Marketing capabilities have a positive and significant effect on firm profitability.
4
capabilities to - Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy (2002): A firms technological opportunism, defined as a sense-and-respond capability
performance? of the firm with respect to new technologies, influences the adoption of radical technologies.
- Matsuno, Mentzer, and zsomer (2002): Market orientation has a positive effect on relative market share, percent of new
product sales to total sales, and ROI.
- Vorhies and Morgan (2005): Eight marketing capabilities (product development, pricing, channel management, marketing
communication, selling, marketing information management, marketing planning, and marketing implementation) are
positively and directly related to firm performance.
- Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden (2005): Market orientation capabilities affect organizational performance by increasing a
firms innovativeness, which in turn, influences customer loyalty and quality perceptions. These mediating mechanisms do
not eliminate the direct effect of market orientation on organizational performance, but they do offer an important means by
which market orientation works (see also Han, Kim, and Srivastava 1998).
- Narasimhan, Rajiv, and Dutta (2006): A firms external absorptive capacity predicts firm profits.
- Gu, Hung, and Tse (2008): A firms corporate channel capability is positively related to the firms market performance.
- Krasnikov and Jayachandran (2008): Meta-analysis of the impact of marketing, R&D, and operations capabilities on firm
performance. Results indicate that capabilities predict firm performance and that marketing capabilities have a stronger
effect on firm performance than R&D and operations capabilities. This effect was stronger for measures of market
performance (e.g., sales and market share) than for efficiency measures (e.g., ROI).
- Voss and Voss (2008): The presence of a firms adaptive learning orientation moderates the effect of high levels of
competitive density on theatre net incomes.
- Bahadir, Bharadwaj, and Srivastava (2008): Both target and acquirer marketing capabilities have a positive effect on the
valuation of a targets brand portfolio during M&A. The positive effect of the target's marketing capability on its brand
portfolio value is weaker when an M&A strategy is synergistic and when it has higher sales growth.
- Swaminathan and Moorman (2009): A firms (partners) marketing alliance capability has a positive (negative) impact on
firm abnormal returns to alliance announcement.
- Kumar, Jones, Venkatesan, and Leone (2011): The effect of market orientation on sales and profits is positive across three
surveys of business performance from 1997-2005. However, the effect of market orientation on these financial outcomes
diminishes over time suggesting the contributions of market orientation have weakened over time with the greatest benefits
accruing to early adopters. The carryover effect of market orientation on profits is greater than the carryover effect on sales.
Greater market and technological turbulence and competitive intensity also moderate these effects increasing the importance
of market orientation to business performance.
- Xiong and Bharadwaj (2011): A young firms marketing absorptive capacity, defined as the firms efficiency in absorbing
marketing know-how, improves its ability to leverage marketing alliance relationships which influences IPO value.
5
- Wiles, Morgan, and Rego (2012): Acquirer (seller) abnormal returns are greater when the acquirer has strong (weak)
marketing capabilities, defined as its ability to define, develop, and deliver value to customers by combining and deploying
its available resources.
- Ulaga and Reinartz (2012): Five firm distinctive capabilities for managing hybrid strategies (i.e., service-related data process
and interpretation, execution risk assessment and mitigation, design-to-service, hybrid offering sales, and hybrid offering
deployment) offer firm differentiation and cost-leadership positional advantages.
- Xiong and Bharadwaj (2013): Firm marketing capabilities have a positive effect on how the stock market reacts to news
released by companiesdampening the effect of negative news and amplifying the effect of positive news.
- Fang, Lee, and Yang (2015): Downstream (upstream) firm alliance capability has a positive effect on downstream
(upstream) firm abnormal returns.
- Kohli and Jaworski (1990); Jaworski and Kohli (1993): Antecedents to a firms market orientation include (i) top
managements emphasis on the customer; (ii) a high degree of interdepartmental connectedness; (iii) a low (high) level of
organization centralization and formalization for market information acquisition and information dissemination (information
responsiveness); and (iv) the use of metrics and incentives to reward employees for market-oriented behaviors.
- Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy (1993): Examine the characteristics of service industries that give rise to the competitive
advantage of its skills and resources, including scale effects, costs and demand synergies, brand equity, and culture as well as
How are the moderating role of the experience and credence qualities of the service.
superior - Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden (2005): Meta-analysis finds support for the Jaworski and Kohli findings.
marketing - Vorhies and Morgan (2005): Firms can develop new capabilities by benchmarking from high-performing competitors.
capabilities - Gu, Hung, and Tse (2008): Guanxi or durable social connections and networks a firm uses to exchange favors for
developed? organizational purposes, facilitate the development of channel capability (e.g., Our brand owns effective distribution
channels) and responsive capability (e.g., We are able to respond properly to market changes).
- Feng, Morgan, and Rego (2015): Strong marketing capabilities accrue from powerful marketing departments. Although not
examined empirically, marketing department power influences the development of firm-level marketing capabilities through
resource attraction and interfunctional coordination activities.
- Banerjee, Prabhu, and Chandy (2015): Firms can develop new capabilities through indirect learning from leaders, partners,
and competitors.
How are - Sinkula (1994): Firms have meta-level learning capabilities that reflect the ability to learn to learn.
marketing - Slater and Narver (1995): Firms engage in both adaptive learning (exploiting current knowledge and skills) and generating
capabilities learning (exploring new knowledge and skills).
changed? - Prabhu, Chandy, and Ellis (2005): Firms need internal knowledge in order to absorb knowledge from acquisitions. This is
the absorptive capacity of Cohen and Levinthal (1990).
6
- Atuahene-Gima (2005): Firms with a strong market orientation are able to explore and exploit their capabilities in market
orientation.
- Fang, Palmatier, and Steenkamp (2008): Examine dynamic capabilities that help reconfigure a firms resources from offering
products to both products and services.
- Day (2011): Three adaptive firm capabilities to facilitate changevigilant market learning, adaptive market
experimentation, and open marketing.
- Morgan (2012): Change depends on the presence of firm capabilities in resource reconfiguration (i.e., ability to retain,
eliminate, and acquire resources) and capability enhancement (i.e., ability to retain, eliminate, acquire, and improve
capabilities).
- Palmatier et al. (2013): Examine a firms dynamic capabilities for communicating and investing in evolving channel
relationships.
7
- Feng, Morgan, and Rego (2015): Firms market department power increases firm capabilities for long-run market-based
asset building and short-run market-based asset leveraging which fully mediate its effect on short-term ROA performance
and partially mediate its effect on long-term shareholder value.
- Workman, Homburg, and Gruner (1998): Offer an integrative framework that relates structural dimensions (location of
marketing and sales, structure within marketing and sales, and formalization and centralization) and non-structure
dimensions (cross-functional dispersion of marketing activities, power of marketing subunit, and cross-functional
interactions) of the marketing organization to the firms environment.
- Matsuno and Mentzer (2000): Miles and Snow strategy type moderates the market orientation-business performance
relationship.
- Homburg, Workman, and Jensen (2002): Organizing framework examines the following features of key account
management (KAM) design: (1) what is done (activities), who does it (actors), how it is done (resources), and the
formalization of action. The authors uncover eight different KAM structures: top management, middle management,
How is
operating level, cross-functional, unstructured, isolated, country club (high level involvement but less formalized
organizational
procedures), and none. Results indicate that an isolated KAM performed no differently than no KAM and that cross-
structure
functional KAMs were most adaptive to changes in the market and had the highest market performance, while top-
aligned with
management KAMs produced the highest profits.
firm strategy
- Vorhies and Morgan (2003): Fit of a firms strategy type to its marketing organization structural characteristics
and the
(centralization, formalization, and specialization) and task characteristics (marketing capabilities and work group
market?
interdependence) improves firm marketing effectiveness and efficiency.
- Olson, Slater, and Hult (2005): Consider a broad range of industries and find that strategy and marketing organization
interact to influence performance. For example, prospectors are more successful when they operate in decentralized,
informal organizations and emphasize customer and innovation orientations while analyzer firms perform well only if they
have customer and competitor orientations.
- Kabadayi, Eyuboglu, and Thomas (2007): Find that channel structure (formalization, centralization, specialization, number
of channels, and channel directness) fit with firm strategy (Porters differentiation, cost, and focus strategies) and channel
environment (dynamism, complexity, and munificence) influences firm performance. Firm fit is determined relative to the
profile of the top-contributing firms in the industry.
What are the - Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpand (1992): In a marketing research context, compared to marketing researcher-non-
role and marketing manager relationships, marketer researcher-marketing manager relationships have higher quality interactions, trust
impact of has a stronger effect on quality of interaction, and commitment has a stronger positive effect on the use of research.
marketing in - Griffin and Hauser (1992): Product development teams using more horizontal communication flows where team members
cross- communicate directly with one another were more effective than teams using vertical (up-over-down) information flows
functional through management.
9
relationships? - Olson, Walker, and Ruekert (1995): The fit of the firms experience with the new product (less experience) and the
formalization of the coordination of resource flows across functions (less formalization) is more important than a certain
type of cross-functional coordination per se.
- Maltz and Kohli (1996): Marketings influence on non-marketers is stronger when marketers use more formal channels of
dissemination.
- Fisher, Maltz, and Jaworski (1997): Marketings influence on engineers is stronger when marketers with a stronger
functional orientation are asked to focus on integrated organizational goals and outcomes that foster a non-functional
orientation.
- Menon, Bharadwaj, Adidam, and Edison (1999): Marketings cross-functional integration has been found to influence
strategy creativity, but not market performance.
- Sethi (2000): The quality of a new product is related to the ability of teams to share information, the influence of customers
during the development process, and the quality orientation of the firm. Time pressure and functional diversity of the team
make-up have no effect.
- Henard and Szymanski (2001): A meta-analyses shows that cross-functional integration plays a very limited role in new
product success.
- Luo, Slotegraaf, and Pan (2006): Cooperative and competitive dynamics on cross-functional teams (i.e., coopetition) produce
the strongest firm performance outcomes.
- De Luca and Kwaku Atuahene-Gima (2007): The specificity of market knowledge and extent of cross-functional
collaboration influence product innovation performance through knowledge integration mechanisms.
- Ernst, Hoyer, and Rbsaamen (2010): Sales-marketing cooperation has a positive effect on overall new product performance
during the concept development and implementation stages of the new product development process. Marketing-R&D
cooperation has a positive effect on the concept development, project development, and implementation stages of the new
product development process.
- Krush, Sohi, and Saini (2015): Intraorganizational sharing of marketing capability responsibilities across functions weakens
marketings influence.
- Workman, Homburg, and Gruner (1998): The antecedents of the choice of where to locate marketing and sales are firm size,
How should
its global orientation, and its market orientation. The organization of marketing and sales is highly influenced by the
firms organize
relatedness of their activities. When related, companies see deeper synergies between the two groups and use a staff
and
marketing and sales organizational form. When unrelated, firms are more likely to use decentralized, autonomous business
coordinate
units.
marketing
- Homburg and Jensen (2007): Companies perform better when marketing and sales have quality cooperation. Differences in
and sales?
orientation and competencies reduce cooperation. Differences in orientation have a direct positive effect on performance,
10
indicating that sales and marketing differences do not per se negatively affect the firm. When differences reduce the ability
to cooperate, performances declines.
- Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj (2007): Customers have a broader view of solutions as a set of relational processes comprising:
(1) recognition of the customers broader business needs, (2) customization and integration, (3) deployment and installation
to conform to the customers operating situation, and (4) post-deployment support and follow-up. They find that companies
pay inadequate attention to processes 1, 3 and 4. Also find that the sales force is the best means for resolving problems.
- Homburg, Jensen, and Krohmer (2008): Find recurring patterns in the marketing-sales interface based on information
sharing, structural linkages, and the respective goal and time orientations. Five archetypal configurations emerged, with two
performing better than the others because of the high degree of teamwork and joint planning. The most successful archetypes
feature a fairly strong marketing function.
- Ernst, Hoyer, and Rbsaaamen (2010): Sales-marketing cooperation has a positive effect on overall new product
performance during the concept development and implementation stages of the new product development process.
- Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpand (1992): In a marketing research context, intraorganizational dyads had stronger
relational outcomes but there was difference in the utilization of market research for intra- versus interorganizational dyads.
As a moderator, intraorganizational dyads had stronger commitment, quality of interaction, and researcher involvement and
commitment had a stronger effect on research use. However, quality of interaction had a stronger effect on research use in
interorganizational dyads.
- Villas-Boas (1994): The decision to share the same agency with a competitor depends on three effects: (1) the decision-
making framework effect (value of outside information), (2) the strategic effect (the competitors reaction to the firms
situation is especially harmful in a particular situation), and (3) the uncertainty effect (the competitors actions are
increasingly harmful). The first effect always favors sharing the same agency. The direction of the latter two effects is
Does
ambiguous. This ambiguity is resolved against the sharing of agencies when (1) the competitor's reaction to the firm's
outsourcing
situation is especially harmful in that particular situation (strategic effect) and (2) the competitor's actions are increasingly
affect firm
harmful (uncertainty effect).
performance?
- Stremersch, Weiss, Dellaert, and Frambach (2003): In the area of modular technology systems, firms prefer to keep activities
in-house as their tacit know-how increases, when they have moderate know-how levels, and technological volatility is high.
- Carson (2007): Findings support the conclusion that clients should use more ex ante control and less ex post control to
govern highly creative tasks.
- Anderson (2008): The greater the difficulty of evaluating a salesperson's performance, the more likely the firm is to use a
direct sales force. Direct sales forces are also associated with complex, hard-to-learn product lines and with districts that
demand considerable non-selling activities.
- Raassens, Wuyts, and Geyskens (2012): There is a positive response from the stock market when firms make a new product
outsourcing announcement; however, there was not a contrast group of firms that performed the tasks internally. The authors
11
suggest that the success of using different control strategies (minority equity participation in the outsourcing provider versus
selecting a provider to whom the outsourcing firm has outsourced NPD in the past) depends on technological uncertainty and
cultural uncertainty. Cultural (technological) uncertainty reduces (increases) the value of equity participation while
increasing (decreasing) the value of relying on past partners.
- Homburg, Workman, and Jensen (2000): Define customer-focused organizational structure as an organizational structure
that uses groups of customers related by industry, application, usage situation, or some other nongeographic similarity as the
primary basis for structuring the organization. The authors argue that a customer structure is an important antecedent of
How does a
market orientation and that the likelihood of a customer structure increases as customer decision making across geographies
customer-
becomes more centralized and as customers access information that allows product and price comparisons across
based
geographies. The authors document the evolution from functional organizations to product-focused business units to
organizational
customer-focused business units, including how the organizations culture, information systems, accounting systems, and
structure
reward systems also need to change for the customer structure to operate effectively.
affect firm
- Lee et al. (2015): Find that a customer structure increases firm coordinating costs which reduces firm financial performance
performance?
and increases firm customer satisfaction which increases firm financial performance. However, the latter effect appears to
only hold for firms in industries where competitors have not yet implemented similar structures or where competitive
intensity is high.
B. Metrics Use
Topics Findings
-Jaworski and Kohli (1993): Measure the intelligence generation component of market orientation including these metrics: (1)
We poll end users at least once a year to assess the quality of our products and services and (2) We often talk with or survey
those who can influence our end users purchases (e.g., distributors).
-Jaworski and Kohli (1993): Measure the use of market-based metrics in the firms reward system: (1) customer satisfaction
assessments influence senior managers pay; (2) salespeoples performance is measured by the strength of relationships they
build with customers; and (3) customer polls are used to evaluate salespeople.
What metrics
-Moorman (1995): Measures the use of market information to evaluate marketing decisions as part of the instrumental use of
do firms
market information. Questions focus on extent to which firm has processes: (1) that formally evaluated the effectiveness of
utilize?
the project; (2) that provided informal feedback regarding the effectiveness of the project; (3) that provided feedback to
decision makers regarding the outcomes of their project decisions; (4) that constructively evaluated project outcomes; and
(5) that encouraged managers to understand the reasons for their mistakes throughout the project.
-Bucklin and Gupta (1999): Commercial use of metrics associated with UPC scanner data tend to focus on consumer
promotions (i.e., coupons), trade promotions, and pricing but less so on product strategy, advertising, and distribution
management.
12
-Vorhies and Morgan (2005): Monitoring marketing performance is not part of the firms marketing implementation
capability; it operates independently.
-Morgan, Anderson, and Mittal (2005): Offer insights into the processes firms engage in during use of customer satisfaction
information (CSI). Authors find that CSI is used more selectively and primarily in the areas of customer service and account
management. Also find that companies report more instrumental use of CSI compared to the conceptual use of CSI.
-OSullivan and Abela (2007): Firms vary in the ability to use marketing performance measurement activities, defined as the
assessment of the relationship between marketing activities and business performance. The activities cover twelve areas
that align around four domains reflecting the ability to measure performance in: (1) management and analysis activities; (2)
direct/online marketing; (3) brand and advertising; and (4) public relations.
-Wiesel, Pauwels, and Arts (2011): Report a cultural shift that introduced more rigor to marketing fund allocation process,
altered mental modes of decision makers, and increased the importance of marketing analytics in organizations.
-Homburg, Artz, and Wieseke (2012): Examine the comprehensiveness of a firms marketing performance measurement
system based on three qualities: (1) the system has breadth, including financial and nonfinancial measures and leading and
lagging measures of marketing performance; (2) the system reflects the firms goals and strategies; (3) the system provides
information about the relationship between marketing actions (causes) and outcomes (effects).
-Skiera and Nabout (2013): Observe a cultural shift from rules of thumb to optimal DSS with visualization to understand the
impact of marketing decisions.
-Mintz and Currim (2013): Marketers use both marketing and financial metrics with a higher use of marketing metrics (see
Table 1). Among the most commonly used marketing metrics are awareness (41% of firms), total customers (37%), and
market share (28%) and the most commonly used financial metrics are total volume (units or sales; 43%), ROI (36%), and
net profits (28%).
-Blattberg and Hoch (1990): Decision making is optimized when simple database models and metrics are combined with
managerial intuition50% manager and 50% model is ideal.
-Moorman (1995): The use of market information to evaluate marketing decisions has a positive effect on new product
financial performance and timeliness among consumer packaged goods companies.
Does the use
-Armstrong and Callopy (1996): Experimental and field study results indicate the use of competitor-based metrics (e.g.,
of metrics
market share) reduces firm survival and profits.
contribute to
-Rust, Moorman, and Dickson (2002): Firms using quality measures with a revenue emphasis to return on quality outperform
firm
firms using quality measures with a cost emphasis or a dual emphasis that reflects both revenues and costs.
performance?
-Mittal, Anderson, Sayrak, and Tadikamalla (2005): Firms that achieve a dual emphasis outperform firms in the long-run that
use only customer satisfaction or cost metrics.
-OSullivan and Abela (2007): There is a positive relationship between marketing performance measurement scores and firm
performance (measured by sales growth, market share, and profitability relative to the competition), CEO satisfaction with
13
marketing (from primary data), and ROA and stock returns (from secondary data). The use of a marketing dashboard does
not explain any variance in the firms subjective and objective performance once the model has accounted for the number of
marketing metrics used by the company.
-Homburg, Artz, and Wieseke (2012): The comprehensiveness of a firms marketing performance measurement system is
positively related to the alignment of a firms marketing activities (extent to which managers execute their tasks in line with
strategic marketing objectives) and market knowledge (extent to which structured and organized organizational knowledge
about the market exists). These intermediate activities, in turn, are shown to improve the firms return on sales, return on
assets, and market performance relative to the competition.
-Mintz and Currim (2013): Report a positive relationship between the number of marketing metrics and financial metrics used
and perceptions of marketing-mix performance, measured by customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, sales, market share,
profitability, and ROI.
-Deshpand and Zaltman (1982): Managers are more likely to use market research high on the following qualities: technical
quality, presentation quality, actionability, the confirmatory nature of research, and political acceptability of the results.
-Deshpand and Zaltman (1982); Maltz and Kohli (1996): Intelligence disseminated in more formalized and centralized
organizations or received through more formal channels is used more than intelligence obtained through informal channels
or in less formalized and centralized organizations.
-Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpand (1992): As the quality of the relationship improves, and the communication and
commitment between provider and user increases, marketing research is more likely to be used.
-Menon and Varadarajan (1992): Offer a conceptual framework that examines the direct effect of environmental factors,
organizational structure, information and innovation culture, and perceived task complexity on the type and extent of
knowledge use, which may include metrics. These antecedents are also theorized to influence internal and external
What factors
communication flows, which influence the cost of information and its perceived credibility and which, in turn, influence
affect the use
knowledge utilization.
of metrics?
-Day and Nedungadi (1994): The type of market research use is influenced by whether the firm is focused on both customers
and competitors (market-driven), customers (customer oriented), competitors (competitor oriented), or neither customers nor
competitors (self-centered).
-Menon, Bharadwaj, Adidam, and Edison (1999): Companies making stronger resource commitments, those with more
creative strategies, and companies operating in turbulent environments report higher organizational learning from strategy
actions.
-Wierenga, Van Bruggen, and Staelin (1999): Model the decision, the decision environment, and the decision maker in a
model that matches supply and demand for marketing decision support systems.
-Barwise and Farley (2003): Examine metric use in five industrial countriesU.S., U.K., Germany, Japan, and France.
German firms are the heaviest users of metrics and Japanese firms are the lowest users.
14
-Lilien, Roberts, and Shankar (2013): Survey and interview data from nine years of ISMS-MSI Practice Prize winners
indicate that simpler, easy-to use models, organizational buy-in achieved through champions, in-house presentations, pilots,
cross-functional involvement, and sharing the same language as influential executives increases the use of marketing models
in organizations.
-Mintz and Currim (2013): Examine firm, managerial, environmental, and marketing mix factors related to the use of
marketing and financial metrics. In terms of firm factors, market orientation is positively related to marketing metric use but
not financial metric use, whereas the presence of a CMO is just the opposite. Being a B2C company and recent positive
business performance are both positively related to the use of both types of metrics, while being a services company is
negatively related to the use of both types of metrics. Firm metric training level and metric-based compensation are
positively related to the use of both types of metrics. In general, individual manager characteristics are not related to
marketing metric use, while managerial experience is negatively related to use of financial metrics and quantitative
background is positively related to financial metric use. In terms of environmental characteristics, market turbulence is
associated with more metric use as is industry concentration. Late stage product life cycles and market growth are negatively
related to the use of market metrics and unrelated to the use of financial metrics. Metric use varies by type of marketing mix
activity with financial metrics more likely to be used compared to marketing metric use (see Table 5 in Mintz and Currim
2013 for details).
-Lilien, Roberts, and Shankar (2013): The following factors give rise to the adoption of models submitted for the ISMS-MSI
Practice Prize, which usually include critical metricsthe use of simpler, easier-to-use models, organizational buy-in
fostered by a high-level champion, holding in-house presentations and dialogue, performing pilot assignments, involving
multi-department personnel, and speaking the same language as influential executives.
- Rindfleisch and Heide (1997): Offer a summary conceptual framework of the literature on transaction cost analysis which
points out opportunistic behavior, self-seeking with guile (Williamson 1985, p. 47), on the part of an agent. The likelihood of
such behavior increases the transaction costs to buying not making the specific source of value.
- Murry and Heide (1998): Retailers fail to follow through on an agreement to display promotional materials for which they
received trade allowances.
- Wathne and Heide (2000): Identify four specific types of opportunism based on two dimensions: active vs. passive and due
to existing vs. new circumstances that lead to evasion (passive behavior/existing situation), refusal to adapt (passive
behavior/new situation), violation (active behavior/existing situation), and forced renegotiation (active behavior/new
situation).
- Seggie, Griffith, and Jap (2013): Relative to active opportunism, passive opportunism is more common and has a more
corrosive impact on partner satisfaction with performance.
- Jap, Robertson, Rindfleisch, and Hamilton (2013): Low-stakes opportunism, self-seeking when the payoffs are low, is more
likely when rapport between parties is high because people are better able to justify their actions by employing morally
malleable reasoning.
Marketing-Finance Interface:
- Markovitch, Steckel, and Yeung (2005): Pharmaceutical firms with underperforming stocks implement more high-risk
innovation strategies than firms outperforming peers.
- Tipton, Bharadwaj, and Robertson (2009): Managers engage in deceptive advertising, producing a 1 percent decrease in
shareholder value if detected by the FDA and warning letters sent to firm.
- Mizik (2010): Managers have a tendency to engage in myopic marketing management and cut marketing and R&D spending
to inflate earnings in the short-term to the detriment of long-term performance (see also Mizik and Jacobson 2007).
- Chapman and Steenburgh (2010): Managers increase marketing promotions for nonperishable products (but not for
perishables) at the end of the fiscal period in order to promote forward buying of nonperishables to increase firm revenues
attributable to the current fiscal period.
- Chakravarty and Grewal (2011): In response to past increases in stock returns and volatility, high-tech manufacturing firms
cut marketing and R&D budgets to avoid future unexpected earnings shortfalls.
- Moorman, Wies, Mizik, and Spencer (2012): Firms time the introduction of new products to show improvement over time,
which improves firm capital-market performance while hurting firm product-market performance.
- Wies and Moorman (2015): After going public, firms introduce more new products but fewer breakthrough innovations.
Marketing Research:
-Sparks and Hunt (1998): Marketing researchers are differentially sensitive to ethical considerations, including the need for
research integrity, fair treatment of clients and vendors, and confidentiality.
16
General:
- Hunt and Vasquez-Parraga (1993): Ethical considerations influence marketing decision making first by consideration of
ethical principles (deontological considerations) and only secondarily consideration of consequences (teleological
considerations).
- Jaworski and Kohli (1993): Measures of a market-based reward system: (1) customer satisfaction assessments influence
senior managers pay; (2) salespeoples performance is measured by the strength of relationships they build with customers;
and (3) customer polls are used to evaluate salespeople.
- Hauser, Simester, and Wernerfelt (1994): Firms can use measures of customer satisfaction to ensure that employees
optimally allocate their efforts between actions that influence current period sales and actions that influence sales in future
periods.
- Murry and Heide (1998): Retailers compliance with an agreement to display promotional materials for which they received
trade allowances is more strongly influenced by incentive premiums and payment method (both economic factors) compared
to interpersonal attachments and monitoring. Interpersonal attachments do not moderate any of the economic factors,
however, performance-based incentive systems (which have a negative main effect) can weaken the positive main effect of
How should
using incentives.
marketing
- Sparks and Hunt (1998): Marketing researcher ethical sensitivity is positively influenced by organizational socialization and
agents be
negatively influenced by relativistic ethical standards and ethics education, but not influenced by professional socialization
aligned for
nor the individual trait of perspective taking (empathy).
firm
- Jap (2001): Collaborating organizations that provide complementary competencies enabling their joint efforts, share the
performance?
benefits that are created according to the type of sharing principle used and whether the sharing processes are responsive to
the goals of the collaboration.
- Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden (2005): Meta-analysis shows that when the reward system is market-based (focused on
customers and competitors) the firm is likely to have stronger capabilities to generate, disseminate, and respond to market
intelligence.
- Griffith and Lusch (2007): Marketers perceptions of the governance structure for more (less) easily transferable knowledge
and skills were positively (negatively) related to job outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment and trust, job satisfaction
and turnover).
Ex ante vs. ex post controls:
- Mishra, Heide, and Cort (1998): Customer firms resolve both the adverse selection and moral hazard problems that involve
questions about supplier quality and opportunism by requiring transaction-specific investments from the supplier (bonds) and
charging a price premium.
- Ghosh and John (1999): Develop a strategic extension of transaction cost analysis that incorporates resource heterogeneity,
positioning investments and governance forms for cooperative relationships.
17
- Jap and Ganesan (2000): Suppliers transaction-specific investments in and use of relational norms toward retailer have a
positive effect on the retailers perceptions of the suppliers commitment; contracts have a negative effect.
- Ghosh and John (2005): Apply the concept of governance value analysis to assess the impact of the tightness of contractual
terms between OEMs and their suppliers based on the fit of firm resources, investments and governance forms.
Formal vs. informal controls (including culture):
- Jaworski (1988): Controls can come in the form of norms or in the form of rules. Informal controls are unwritten but
understood norms that guide individual and group behavior. Formal controls, on the other hand, are codified and
bureaucratic mechanisms that can act on inputs, processes, or outputs.
- Hunt, Wood, and Chonko (1989): Corporate ethical values are conceptualized as an important part of organizational culture
which influences marketer organizational commitment.
- Jaworski and MacInnis (1989): Self-control has no effect on gaming, smoothing, focusing, and inaccurate reporting.
However, professional control (defined as the degree to which peers within ones work unit engage in collegial interaction,
discussion, and information evaluations of a colleagues work) reduces these behaviors.
- Jaworski, Stahakopoulos, and Krishnan (1993): Employees working in organizations with a high mix of these control
mechanisms are more satisfied and experience less role conflict and role ambiguity.
- Mohr, Fisher, and Nevin (1996): High levels of manufacturer control make collaborative communication in the channel less
common.
- Ayers, Dahlstrom, and Skinner (1997): Managerial controls (centralization and role formalization) influence R&D-
Marketing integration, relational norms, and perceived effectiveness.
Output control vs. process control vs. capability control:
- Oliver and Anderson (1994): Behavior-based (process) controls are most effective (see also Cravens et al. 1993; Challagalla
and Shervani 1996).
- Bello and Guilliand (1997): Use of process controls has no effect on export channel performance while outcome control has
a positive effect (see Ramaswami 1996).
- Chu and Desai (1995): Incentives involving a bonus for customer satisfaction performance are more effective when a
manufacturer deals with a retailer with a short-term orientation, but investment assistance to improve customer satisfaction
are better when the retailer has long-term orientation.
- Challagala and Shervani (1996, p. 90): Identify capability control, defined as controls which emphasize the development of
individual skills and abilities and show how this can be administered through information, rewards, and punishments. Sales
managers who use capability control with information and rewards (punishments) produce higher (lower) salesperson
satisfaction and performance.
18
- Heide, Wathne, and Rokkan (2007): Output (process) monitoring decreases (increases) partner opportunism in buyer-seller
relationships. Informal relationship elements can reduce the negative effects of output monitoring while facilitating the effect
of process monitoring on the level of opportunism.
- Joshi (2009): Firms should emphasize capability control and deemphasize process control to foster continuous supplier
performance improvement.
- Kashyap, Antia, and Frazier (2012): Behavioral monitoring and output monitoring alone do not improve franchisee
compliance or curb opportunistic behavior. Together, both outcomes are achieved.
The influence of reward structure:
- Hauser, Simester, and Wernerfelt (1996): Two internal customer-internal supplier incentive systems (internal customer
selects the suppliers percent of bonus based on market outcomes OR internal customer selects target market outcomes for
the supplier) reduce the need to observe either the internal customer or the internal supplier.
- Ghosh and John (2000): When risk-averse agents whose actions are not verifiable face higher levels of effort-output
uncertainty, more salary-weighted compensation should be used. On the other hand, flat wages should be used for verifiable
effort.
- Toubia (2006): Offers solution to the tendency for employees to free ride off other employees efforts when working in
groups.
- Lim, Ahearne, and Ham (2009): Allowing multiple winners in a contest improves overall sales revenue performance. Also,
unique ranked-ordered prizes do not work as well as a group of winners receiving the same award (e.g., the top four sellers
receive a vacation).
- Lo, Ghosh, and LaFontaine (2011): Firms tend to use larger incentives as the importance of agent effort increases and agents
with greater selling ability and lower risk aversion are receive larger incentives.
- Currim, Lim, and Kim (2012): Increasing top managers equity compensation increases advertising spending as a share of
sales, which, in turn, increases firm stock market returns.
- Jain (2012): Firms can mitigate employee self-control problems involving short-term (present-biased) preferences by
delaying payment to employees.
- Kishore, Rao, Narasimhan, and John (2013): Investigate the value of bonuses (paid upon reaching quota) vs. commissions
(per-unit payouts paid on sales beyond a quota). Commissions increase sales force productivity by 24% over bonuses and
this improvement is more pronounced among weak salespeople. Bonuses increase the likelihood that sales people will
engage in timing games in which they push sales into the future if they are unlikely to meet quota and pull sales from the
future if they are near quota (p. 318). Once goals were achieved, the bonus scheme did not interfere with the performance of
extramural tasks important to the firm.
19
- Chung, Steenburgh, and Sudhir (2014): Bonuses enhance productivity and the provision of overachievement bonuses helps
sustain productivity once quotas are reached. The use of quarterly bonuses improves the performance of weaker performers
who need these intermediate rewards to pace their progress toward annual rewards.
20
- Piercy (1996): Identifies twenty different marketing activities and assesses the degree to which the Chief Marketing
Executive is responsible for them. Cluster analyzing the responses from 284 companies together with measures of size, rank,
and integration of different functions, Piercy identifies four types of marketing organization and associated leaders that vary
on size, integration of functions and manpower, board representation, product-market type, and CME responsibility.
- Homburg, Workman, and Krohmer (1999): Assess marketings influence over eleven different activities (pricing, new
product development, strategic direction of the business unit, major capital expenditures, expansion into new geographic
market, choices of strategic business partners, design of customer service and support, customer satisfaction improvement
programs, distribution strategy, advertising messages, and customer satisfaction measurement) but do not subscribe these to
a specific marketing leader (see also Homburg, Vomberg, Enke, and Grimm 2015).
- Wieseke et al. (2009): Marketing leaders stimulate an organizational identification process between employees and the firm,
How do which improves business unit financial performance. This relationship happens at different levels and is moderated by both
marketing the degree to which the leader is charismatic and the relationship length between leader and follower.
leaders - Morhart, Herzog, and Tomczak (2009): Brand-specific transformational leaders (e.g., leader focusing on living the brand in
improve firm words and actions and instilling this in others) increase employee internalization of brand identity, which improves employee
performance? positive word-of-mouth, reduces turnover, and increases brand-building behaviors among employees. Moderate levels of
transactional leadership which focuses on monitoring and compliance with brand-consistent behavior seems to bolster the
effects of transformational leadership; high levels of transactional leadership hurt its effects.
- Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha (2010): Marketing leaders perform an informational role that identifies new opportunities, a
decisional role that drives investments, and a relational role that develops and manages relationships with external
stakeholders.
- Jaworski (2011): Identifies seven core tasks for CMOs: (1) establishes role of marketing in the firm; (2) owns the voice of
the market; (3) responsible for marketing strategy; (4) coordinates marketing with other areas of the firm; (5) runs the
marketing organization; (6) identifies and leads the marketing transformation effort; and (7) establishes marketing scorecard
and performance metrics.
- Homburg et al. (2014): Theorize that marketing leaders legitimize young firms.
- Nath and Mahajan (2008): CMOs are more likely to be present in firms with stronger innovation strategy and differentiation
strategy, in firms using a corporate branding strategy, as TMT marketing experience increases, as TMT general management
What
experience decreases, and when the CEO is an outsider.
influences the
- Homburg et al. (2014): Replicate some of these effects in young firms seeking venture capital. As part of their selection
appointment of
model to predict the presence of a CMO in the firm, the authors observe the following effects: firm innovation strategy (+),
marketing
firm new product introductions (+), firm differentiation strategy (n.s.), firm age (+), whether the firm is born global (n.s.),
leaders?
whether the firm is in a VC cluster (n.s.), CEO with marketing experience (+), CEO start-up experience (n.s.), CFO presence
(+), industry demand instability (+), industry legitimacy (-), and industry complexity (-).
22
B. Marketing Employees
Topics Findings
Marketer experience:
- Perkins and Rao (1990): Job experience level improves the individual use of market research information and decision quality
in less programmed domains.
- Moorman, Deshpand, and Zaltman (1993): Market researcher job and firm experience has no effect on trust from market
research users.
- Andrews and Smith (1996): Diversity of experience has no effect on marketing program creativity.
- Clark and Montgomery (1999): Job tenure reduces the number of competitors identified by managers.
- Mintz and Currim (2013): Job experience is negatively related to use of financial metrics but unrelated to the use of marketing
What is the metrics.
contribution of Marketer knowledge:
marketing - Blattberg and Hoch (1990): A combination of manager use of a model and manager ability has superior performance effects
employee relative to each input alone.
knowledge and - Moorman, Deshpand, and Zaltman (1993): More expert market researchers inspire greater trust from market research users.
experience? - Andrews and Smith (1996): Operating environment knowledge has no effect, macroenvironment knowledge has a positive
effect, and diversity of education has no effect on marketing program creativity.
- Homburg, Wieseke, and Bornemann (2009): Examine front-line employees customer need knowledge, defined as the extent
to which an employee can correctly identify a given customers hierarchy of needs. They find that this knowledge fully
mediates the effect of employee characteristics (such as customer orientation or empathy) on the employees customers
satisfaction and willingness to pay.
- Kidwell, Hardesty, Murtha, and Sheng (2011): The emotional intelligence of salespeople is positively related to their sales
performance, even when controlling for experience.
- Mintz and Currim (2013): Manager quantitative background is positively related to individual financial metric use.
23
- Mullins, Ahearne, Lam, Hall, and Boichuk (2014): The accuracy of a salespersons relationship quality judgments improves
individual performance.
- Hall, Ahearne, and Sujan (2015): Accurate intuitive salesperson judgments improve selling performance by improving the
choice of initial sales strategy and by reducing selling time. Performance is negatively affected when inaccurate deliberate
judgments follow from accurate intuitive judgments.
Innovation training:
- Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Soloman (1999): Training subjects in creativity templates increases the creativity of new
products developed compared to a control group that receives no training or a group that receives training in other creativity
techniques (e.g., lateral thinking, HIT).
- Scott, Leritz, and Mumford (2004): Meta-analysis indicates that creativity training works.
- Burroughs, Dahl, Moreau, Chattopadhyay, and Gorn (2011): Training programs designed to improve creativity during new
product development improve product creativity most when both rewards and training programs are used.
Sales training:
- Gopalakrinshna and Lilien (1995): Training improves firm performance across three different outcomes associated with trade
show performance.
- Anderson and Robertson (1995): Sales training reduces risk of turnover.
- Godes (2003): Training should be a function of the ROI expected from such investments and this is influenced by nature of
What is the
product and high/low ability sales types.
impact of
- Kalra and Soberman (2008): The use of training films that emphasize beat the competition do reduce competitor
marketing
profitability. However, this benefit is achieved by managers willingness to sacrifice their own companies profits in order to
training?
reduce competitor profits.
- Homburg, Wieseke, and Bornemann (2009): Customer-oriented training (perspective taking training) has a positive (no) main
effect on customer need knowledge. Customer-oriented training strengthens the positive effect of employee customer
orientation on customer need knowledge.
- Kumar, Sunder, and Leone (2014): Positive but non-linear relationship between task-related training (focused on the product
and customer) and growth-related training (focused on leader, team selling, and negotiation skills) and the value of a
salesperson to the firm (measured by customer lifetime value). The non-linearity suggests that the value of training diminishes
after a certain point, but the exact point varies by salesperson types that reflect different sensitivities to training and
incentives.
Marketing decision making training:
- Boulding, Morgan, and Staelin (1997): Managers can be trained to use stopping rules to attenuate the tendency to make
ongoing financial commitments to failing new products.
24
- Armstrong and Collopy (1996): A focus on market share and beating the competition worsens with management education
(viewed as a type of training).
- Bolton (2003): Priors generated through analogies in new product forecasting are persistent when they should be discarded
and training to resolve does not work.
- Hutchinson, Alba, and Eisenstein (2010): Advertising allocation decisions are hampered by heuristics that drive managers to
allocate more dollars to an advertising medium that is uncorrelated with sales. Prior experience and training do not resolve
these problems.
Ethics training:
- Sparks and Hunt (1998): The level of formal training in ethics during a college education and during a career in marketing
research is negatively related to marketing research professionals likelihood of recognizing an ethical issue.
Leadership training:
- Morhart, Herzog, and Tomczak (2009): Managers can be trained to effectively enact the array of behaviors associated with
brand-specific transformational leaders.
-Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985): Pioneering work on SERVQUAL theorizes that the customers perception of
experienced service quality can break down due to a number of internal and external organizational gaps (see also Zeithaml,
Berry, and Parasuraman 1988). One of these gaps is due to a breakdown between the design and delivery of service quality
which is influenced by the selection, training, compensation, and evaluation of employees.
-Jaworski and Kohli (1991): A fourfold typology of coworker feedback focused on locus (output vs. behavior) and valence
How does the (positive vs. negative). Results indicate that behavioral feedback is more effective than output feedback and that positive
management of feedback is more effective than negative feedback; negative behavioral feedback has a dysfunctional effect on performance.
front-line -Singh and Rhoads (1991): Front-line employees often experience special types of stress and ambiguity given they are
employees responsible to the organization and to the customer.
impact -Bitner (1992): Physical surroundings or servicescapes impact the quality of employee-customer interactions.
customers and -Bitner, Booms, and Mohr (1994): Analyze critical service encounters from both employee and customer perspectives and find
firm general agreement between the two parties. However, from the employees point of view, they uncover a novel source of
performance? dissatisfactionthe customers own misbehavior.
-Kohli and Jaworski (1994): A fourfold typology of coworker feedback focused on locus (output vs. behavior) and valence
(positive vs. negative). Results indicate that positive output feedback has the strongest positive effect on performance while
positive behavioral feedback has the strongest positive effect on satisfaction.
-Siguaw, Brown, and Widing (1994): The larger the difference between a salespersons individual customer orientation and
the firms market orientation, the higher the salespersons role conflict. The difference had no effect on role ambiguity, job
satisfaction, or organizational commitment.
25
-Hartline and Ferrell (1996): Role ambiguity has significant negative effect on employee self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and
adaptability.
-Singh (2000): Customer service and bill collection representatives experience burnout in interacting with customers when
they face role ambiguity and role conflict in these interactions. Interestingly, burnout reduces quality but does not affect
productivity. Task control (the latitude to make decisions) emerges as a more important coping resource for FLEs than the
socio-emotional support of a boss.
-Donovan, Brown, and Mowen (2004): Employee customer orientation has a positive effect on job satisfaction, job
commitments, and organizational citizenship behaviors.
-Ye, Marinova, and Singh (2007): A strategic change to emphasize both productivity and quality can be facilitated when FLEs
participate in the process, which allows them to detach effectively and separate the negative and positive effects of change.
-Marinova, Ye, and Singh (2008): The tension between productivity and quality among FLEs is best resolved by increasing the
autonomy of FLEs and strengthening the cohesiveness among employees in the business unit.
-Chan and Wan (2012): Work stress causes depletion and this influences employee performance on job activities that require
self-regulation, such as handling complaints.
-Jasmand, Blazevic, and de Ruyter (2012): Identifies the conditions in which a customer service representatives in an inbound
call center can be ambidextrous and provide appropriate after sales service while up-selling and cross-selling.
-Sarin, Challagalla, and Kohli (2012): Supervisors can facilitate implementation of changes to marketing strategy using a mix
of outcome-oriented and process-oriented supervisory actions. Both outcome and process risk containment strategies are more
effective for salespeople with a higher performance orientation.
-Schepers, Falk, de Ruyter, de Jong, and Hammerschmidt (2012): Customer stewardship control, defined as the employees
felt ownership of and moral responsibility for customers overall welfare, shapes important in- and extra-role behaviors
performed by employees.
-Zablah, Franke, Brown, and Bartholomew (2012): Meta-analysis indicates that customer orientation (the belief that the
organization should place customers interests first in all decisions) reduced employee job stress and increase job
engagement, which in turn, increases employee performance and reduces the likelihood of turnover.
What is the - Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, and Schlesinger (1994): In the logic of the service profit chain, employee actions and
contribution of satisfaction are viewed as contributing to the actions and satisfaction of customers, which, in turn, produce firm financial
employee performance.
satisfaction to - Kamakura, Mittal, DeRosa, and Mazzon (2002): Resource investments in employees have a positive effect on customer
firm perceptions of employees and these perceptions increase customer purchase intentions, purchase, and retention as well as
performance? profitability.
26
- Maxham, Netemeyer, and Lichtenstein (2008): Employee in-role and extra-role performance toward the customer are
positively related to customer evaluations, which, in turn, mediate the effect on average customer transaction value and
comparable store sales growth.
-Dotson and Allenby (2010): Customer and employee satisfaction have a direct effect on bank revenues and these sources of
satisfaction also moderate the relationship between a banks investments in technology and revenues.
27
Topics Findings
Forms of culture:
-Deshpand and Webster (1989): Organizational culture is the shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand
organizational functioning and that provide norms for behavior in the organization.
-Narver and Slater (1990): Define market orientation as the organization culture (i.e., culture and climate) that most
effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous
superior performance (p. 21). In their view, a market-oriented culture requires three reinforcing behaviorsa customer
orientation (i.e., an understanding of one's target buyers to be able to create superior value for them continuously), a
competitor orientation (i.e., a seller understands the short-term strengths and weaknesses and long-term capabilities and
strategies of both the key current and potential competitors), and a focus on interfunctional coordination (i.e., behaviors
reflecting coordinated utilization of company resources in creating superior value for target customers).
-Homburg and Pflesser (2000): Market-oriented organizational-culture includes: (1) organization-wide shared basic values
supporting market orientation; (2) organization-wide norms for market orientation; (3) perceptible artifacts of market
How has
orientation; and (4) market-oriented behaviors.
organizational
-Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry (2006): Focus on values, norms, behaviors, and artifacts that carry cultural meaning.
culture been
Content of culture:
studied in
-Narver and Slater (1990): A market orientation is the business culture that most effectively and efficiently creates superior
marketing?
value for customer. It is comprised of three behavioral components (customer orientation, competitor orientation,
interfunctional orientation) and two decision criteria (long-term focus and a profit objective).
-Deshpand, Farley, and Webster (1993): The intersection of internal vs. external orientation and organic/informal vs.
mechanistic/formal processes produces four cultures emphasizing different values: market (high external, high formal),
adhocracy (high external, high informal), bureaucracy (high internal, high formal), and clan (high internal, high informal)
(see also Lukas, Whitwell, and Heide 2013; Moorman 1995; Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy 2002; White, Varadarajan,
and Dacin 2003).
-Hurley and Hult (1998): Culture contains a value emphasizing the openness of the organization to new ideas and is measured
by the degree to which the company: (1) provides opportunities for individual development other than formal training; (2)
encourages managers to attend formal development activities, such as training, professional seminars, and symposia; (3) has
people in the firm who provide career guidance and counseling; and (4) promotes career management as a shared
responsibility of both employee and manager.
28
-Wuyts and Geyskens (2005): Create firm-level equivalents of Hofstedes nation-level measures: uncertainty avoidance (firm
feels threatened by and tries to avoid ambiguous situations in the supply chain), collectivism (a focus on group norms over
personal goals), and power distance (more powerful firms should have more say in relationships).
-Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry (2006): Market-oriented culture is reflected in the following values (and associated norms):
(1) market as the raison dtre (every decision and action must consider how it affects the market); (2) collaboration (teams
are jointly responsible for outcomes); (3) respect/empathy/perspective taking (consider the perspectives, needs, training, and
experience of others when reacting to or interpreting their actions); (4) keeping promises (each employee is responsible for
following through on commitments to others); (5) openness (proactively and honestly share information, assumptions, and
motives with others); and (6) trust (trust that your fellow employees are telling the truth and will follow through on
commitments).
-Tellis, Prabhu, and Chandy (2009): Three attitudes and three behaviors associated with a firms culture are critical to its
ability to develop and introduce radical innovation. The attitudes are a willingness to cannibalize current offerings with
innovation (see Chandy and Tellis 1998), an orientation on the future (see Yadav, Prabhu, and Chandy 2007), and a
tolerance for risk. The behaviors are empowerment of product champions, incentives for innovation, and creation and
maintenance of internal markets that foster autonomy and competition for innovation.
-By surveying key informants: Deshpand, Farley, and Webster 1993; Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar 1993; Day and Nedungadi
How is 1994; Moorman 1995; Chandy and Tellis 1998; Hartline, Maxham, and McKee 2000; Homburg and Pflesser 2000;
organizational Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy 2002; White, Varadarajan, and Dacin 2003; Wuyts and Geyskens 2005; Tellis, Prabhu,
culture and Chandy 2009; Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne 2010; Lukas, Whitwell, and Heide 2013.
measured in -By a multi-method approach: Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry (2006) use a longitudinal multi-method approach including
marketing? interview data, archival data, and observational data to develop a model of cultural transformation toward a market
orientation.
Firm financial and market performance outcomes
-Narver and Slater (1990): Market-oriented culture has a positive effect on firm profitability.
What is the -Deshpand, Farley, and Webster (1993): Firm market culture has a positive effect on firm performance (relative to
contribution competition on profits, size, market share, growth rate).
of culture to -Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, and Fahy (1993): Propose that the greater the people intensity of service industry, the greater the
firm importance of culture as a source of competitive advantage.
performance? -Day and Nedungadi (1994): The relationship between a market-driven mental model and firm performance is stronger than
competitor-centered, customer-centered, or self-centered mental models.
-Homburg and Pflesser (2000): Market-oriented behaviors have a positive effect on a firms performance (measured by both
market performance and financial performance) and that this effect is stronger in more dynamic markets.
29
-Rubera and Kirca (2012): Meta-analysis indicates a positive relationship between an innovative culture and a firms financial
position or value.
Firm innovation outcomes
-Hurley and Hult (1998): Describe a positive relationship between a cultural focus on learning and development and firm
capacity to innovate.
-Han, Kim, and Srivastava (1998): Innovation mediates the relationship between market orientation and firm performance.
-Menon, Bharadwaj, Adidam, and Edison (1999): An innovative culture has a positive effect on the key components of a
firms marketing strategy making process, including comprehensiveness, marketing assets and capabilities, communication
quality, consensus commitment, and resource commitment.
-Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden (2005): A meta-analysis finds that market orientation facilitates innovativeness.
-Tellis, Prabhu, and Chandy (2009): There is a positive relationship between five elements of corporate culture, including
three attitudes (willingness to cannibalize, tolerance for risk, and orientation on the future) and two behaviors (empowerment
of product champions and incentives for innovation).
Firm information outcomes
-Moorman (1995): Clan cultures foster greater conceptual and instrumental use of market information.
-Srinivasan, Lilien, and Rangaswamy (2002): A firms future focus and its adhocracy culture influences a firms
technological opportunism (ability to sense-and-respond to new technologies).
-White, Varadarajan, and Dacin (2003): Both informal culturesadhocracies and clanincrease the perceived control of
external events, which, in turn, increases (decreases) the likelihood that the event will be appraised as an opportunity (threat).
Firm channel/relationship outcomes
-Moorman, Deshpand, and Zaltman (1993): Hierarchical cultures reduce trust between producers and users of market
research.
-Wuyts and Geyskens (2005): Firm-level collectivism is positively associated with both detailed contract drafting and close
partner selection behaviors, while uncertainty avoidance and power distance are positively related to detailed contract
drafting.
-Lukas, Whitwell, and Heide (2013): External organizational cultures (adhocracies and markets) are associated with a
tendency to overshoot customer needs among suppliers in the IT industry.
How should -Hartline, Maxham, and McKee (2000): A firms customer orientation is more likely to end up in employees shared values
firms build when one of several corridors of influence are used, including socialization through an employees work group and less
and sustain a formalized and more behavior-based evaluation.
market- -Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry (2006): A four-stage path-dependent change process occurs in the transformation toward a
oriented market-oriented culture: (1) a small group of empowered managers identify the need to change (initiation), (2) these
culture? managers create a coalition that demarcates the nature of the cultural change, the removal of dissenters, and the hiring of
30
believers (reconstitution), (3) changes are institutionalized, including formalization of cultural elements, alignment of
rewards, the education of members, and a power shift back to the larger organization (institutionalization), and (4) the
ongoing preservation of the new culture through screening new members, enactment of rituals and the emergence of flame
keepers, and the resistance to management fads and fashions (maintenance).
-Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne (2010): Study middle managers and work-group expert peers who serve as top mangers envoys
and role models of market-oriented behavior to front-line employees.
31
MARKORG
Configuration: (Human) Capital:
Marketing
Structure, Metrics Use, Marketing Leaders and Culture
Capabilities
Incentives/Controls Marketing Employees
7As
A firms market orientation Structure: Firms with more powerful Leaders: Marketing leaders A strong cultural emphasis on the
processes (Kohli and marketing departments have a stronger perform an informational role that customer increases the regular
Jaworski 1990) and market market orientation and a longer-term identifies new opportunities for the accessing of customer information
sensing capabilities (Day time orientation (Feng, Morgan, and firm to pursue (Boyd, Chandy, and (Deshpand, Farley, and
Anticipation 1994) focus firm attention Rego 2015). Cunha 2010). Webster1993).
Activities: on the marketplace. Use of Metrics: Use of customer Employees: (1) Employee customer A cultural focus on the future
Actions for early Market sensing increases satisfaction metrics has its strongest need knowledge improves customer increases radical innovation (Yadav,
and accurate early entry into e-business effects on how managers think and outcomes (Homburg, Wieseke, and Prabhu, and Chandy 2007).
sensing of (Srinivasan, Lilien, and make decisions (Morgan, Anderson, Bornemann 2009). (2) Salesperson
external threats Rangaswamy 2002). and Mittal 2005). relationship quality knowledge
Designing Marketing Strategy
Activities: (Moorman and Rust 1999). (3) customer brand evaluations (Siranni
Actions to create Cooperation between marketing-R&D, et al. 2013).
internal alignment sales-R&D, and marketing-sales all
of people, have a positive effect on new product
processes, and performance (Ernst et al. 2010).
structures Use of Metrics: Comprehensiveness of
a firms marketing performance
measurement system increases
alignment of marketing activities to
objectives (Homburg et al. 2012).
Incentives/Controls: A key function of
incentives and controls is to align
agents actions (see Table W2C for
details).
Activation Incentives/Controls: (1) Behavior- Leaders: (1) Brand-specific Cultural norms focused on the
Activities: based evaluations motivate customer transformational leaders increase market guide the enactment of
Actions to focus (Hartline et al. 2000). (2) The use employee internalization of brand employee market-oriented behaviors
motivate and of a market-based reward system identity, which improves word of (Homburg and Pflesser 2000).
inspire individual increases acquisition, dissemination, mouth, reduces turnover, and Defining critical behaviors to align
and/or and use of market information (Kirca, increases the performance of in-role with the market as the firms raison
organizational Jayachandran, and Bearden 2005). (3) and extra-role brand-building dtre facilitates the development of
behaviors Professional controls are more behaviors (Morhart, Herzog, and
33
motivating in reducing marketer Tomczak 2009). (2) Marketing a market-oriented culture (Gebhardt,
misbehaviors than self-control leaders stimulate an organizational Carpenter, and Sherry 2006).
mechanism (Jaworski and MacInnis identification process between Movement toward a market-
1989). employee and firm, which improves oriented culture is intrinsically
firm performance (Wieseke et al. motivating as employees work
2009). (3) Middle managers socialize together to serve the market
front-line employees in core (Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry
customer values (Lam, Krauss, and 2006).
Ahearne 2010).
Employees: (1) Customer-oriented
employees demonstrate a stronger
firm commitment, higher job
satisfaction, and organizational
citizenship behaviors (Donovan,
Brown, and Mowen 2004) and higher
engagement, better performance, and
longer job tenures (Zablah et al.
2012). (2) Customer stewardship
control (i.e., an employees felt
ownership for customer welfare)
shapes in- and extra-role behaviors
(Schepers et al. 2012).
Firms have differential skills Structure: The marketing function
in evaluating marketing creates accountability through the
performance and this skill creation of market orientation activities
improves performance (Verhoef and Leeflang 2009). Firms
Assessing Marketing Strategy
Strong relational capabilities Leaders: CMOs with more The shift toward a market-oriented
attract partners (Johnson et marketing experience improve firm culture involves attracting employees
al. 2004). VC funding (Homburg et al. 2014). that buy a customer mission
Attraction Capability outputs attract: (Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry
Activities: Strong brands attract 2006).
Actions to attract employees at lower pay
financial, (Tavassoli, Sorescu, and
Resourcing Marketing Strategy
Aaker, David A. and Robert Jacobson (1994), The Financial Information Content of Perceived
Quality, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May), 191-201.
Anderson, Erin and Thomas S. Robertson (1995), Inducing Multiline Salespeople to Adopt
House Brands, Journal of Marketing, 59 (April), 16-31.
Ayers, Doug, Robert Dahlstrom, and Steven J. Skinner (1997), An Exploratory Investigation of
Organizational Antecedents to New Product Success, Journal of Marketing Research, 34
(February), 107-16.
Bahadir, S. Cem, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Rajendra K. Srivastava (2008), Financial Value of
Brands in Mergers and Acquisitions: Is Value in the Eye of the Beholder?, Journal of
Marketing, 72 (November), 49-64.
Barwise, Patrick and John U. Farley (2003), Which Metrics are Used and Where?, Working
Paper Series, No. 03-002, Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Lois A. Mohr (1994), Critical Service Encounters: The
Employees Viewpoint, Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 95-106.
Blattberg, Robert C. and Stephen J. Hoch (1990), Database Models and Managerial Intuition:
50% Model + 50% Manager, Management Science, 36 (8), 887-99.
Boulding, William, Ruskin Morgan, and Richard Staelin (1997), Pulling the Plug to Stop the
New Product Drain, Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (February), 164-76.
Burroughs, James E., Darren W. Dahl, C. Page Moreau, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Gerald
Gorn (2011), Facilitating and Rewarding Creativity During New Product Development,
Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 53-67.
Cao, Zixia and Alina Sorescu (2013), Wedded Bliss or Tainted Bliss: Stock Market Reactions to
the Introduction of Cobranded Products, Marketing Science, 32 (Nov-Dec), 939-59.
Chakravarty, Anindita and Rajdeep Grewal (2011), The Stock Market in the Drivers Seat!
Implications for R&D and Marketing, Management Science, 57 (0), 1594-1609.
Challagalla, Goutam N. and Tasadduq A. Shervani (1996), Dimensions and Types of
Supervisory Control: Effects on Salesperson Performance and Satisfaction, Journal of
Marketing, 60 (January), 89-105.
Chandy, Rajesh and Gerard J. Tellis (1998), Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The
Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize, Journal of Marketing Research, 35
(November), 474-87.
Chapman, Craig J. and Thomas J. Steenburgh (2010), An Investigation of Earnings Management
through Marketing Actions, Management Science, 57 (1), 72-92.
Chu, Wujin and Preyas S. Desai (1995), Channel Coordination Mechanisms for Customer
Satisfaction, Marketing Science, 14 (4), 343-59.
Cravens, David W., Thomas N. Ingram, Raymond W. LaForge, and Clifford E. Young (1993),
Behavior-Based and Outcome-Based Salesforce Control Systems, Journal of Marketing, 57
(October), 47-59.
Currim, Imran S., Jooseop Lim, and Joung W. Kim (2012), You Get What You Pay For: The
Effect of Top Executives Compensation on Advertising and R&D Spending Decisions and
Stock Market Return, Journal of Marketing, 76 (September), 33-48.
De Luca, Luigi M. and Kwaku Atuahene-Gima (2007), Market Knowledge Dimensions and
Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation
Performance, Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 95-112.
Deshpand, Rohit, and Gerald Zaltman (1984), A Comparison of Factors Affecting Use of
36
Feb), 70-88.
Schepers, Jeroen, Tomas Falk, Ko de Ruyter, Ad de Jong, and Maik Hammerschmidt (2012),
Principles and Principals: Do Customer Stewardship and Agency Control Compete or
Complement when Shaping Frontline Employee Behavior?, Journal of Marketing, 76
(November), 1-20.
Scott, Ginamarie, Lyle E. Leritz, and Michael D. Mumford (2004), The Effectiveness of
Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review, Creativity Research Journal, 16 (4), 361-388.
Seggie, Steven H., David A. Griffith, and Sandy D. Jap (2013), Passive and Active Opportunism
in Interorganizational Exchange, Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 73-90,
Sethi, Rajesh (2000), New Product Quality and Product Development Teams, Journal of
Marketing, 64 (April), 1-14.
Siguaw, Judy A., Gene Brown, and Robert E. Widing (1994), The Influence of the Market
Orientation of the Firm on Sales force Behavior and Attitudes, Journal of Marketing
Research, 31 (February), 106-116.
Singh, Jagdip and Gary K. Rhoads (1991), Boundary Role Ambiguity in Marketing-oriented
Positions: A Multidimensional, Multifaceted Operationalization, Journal of Marketing
Research, 28 (August), 328-38.
Swaminathan, Vanitha and Christine Moorman (2009), Marketing Alliances, Firm Networks,
and Firm Value Creation, Journal of Marketing, 72 (September), 52-69.
Tipton, Martha Myslinski, Sundar G. Bharadwaj, and Diana C. Robertson (2009), Regulatory
Exposure of Deceptive Marketing and Its Impact on Firm Value, Journal of Marketing, 73
(November), 227-243.
Ulaga, Wolfgang, and Werner J. Reinartz (2011), Hybrid Offerings: How Manufacturing Firms
Combine Goods and Services Successfully, Journal of Marketing 75 (6), 5-23.
Voss, Glenn B. and Zannie Giraud Voss (2008), Competitive Density and the Customer
Acquisition - Retention Trade-Off, Journal of Marketing, 72 (Nov), 3-18.
White, Chris J., P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Peter A. Dacin (2003), Market Situation Interpretation
and Response: The Role of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture, and Information Use,
Journal of Marketing, 67 (July), 63-79.
Wierenga, Berend, Gerrit H. Van Bruggen, and Richard Staelin (1999), The Success of
Marketing Management Support Systems, Marketing Science, 18 (3), 196-207.
Wies, Simone and Christine Moorman (2015), Going Public: How Stock Market Listing
Changes Firm Innovation Behavior, Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (October), 694-709.
Wiesel, Thorsten, Koen Pauwels, and Joep Arts (2011), Practice Prize Paper Marketings
Profit Impact: Quantifying Online and Off-line Funnel Progression, Marketing Science, 30
(4), 604-11.
Xiong, Guiyang and Sundar Bharadwaj (2011), Social Capital of Young Technology Firms and
Their IPO Values: The Complementary Role of Relevant Absorptive Capacity, Journal of
Marketing, 75 (November), 87-104.
Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and A. Parasuraman (1988), Communication and
Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 35-48.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.