Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Business strategy, marketing organization culture, and performance

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Drawing on configuration theory, we develop and test a model which posits that overall firm performance will be influenced by how well the marketing organization’s cultural orientation (i.e., market, adhocracy, hierarchy, or clan) complements alternative business strategies (i.e., Prospector, Analyzer, Low-Cost Defender, Differentiated Defender) after controlling for other, key firm-level variables. Responses from a sample of senior marketing managers provide partial support for the model and demonstrate that high-performing businesses of one strategy type have a different cultural orientation than high-performing businesses of the other strategy types. And, contrary to previous research, the results of this study show that each of the cultural orientations may play a role in creating superior performance. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for scholars and for managers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J., & Gerbing, M. (1988). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, E., & Zinkhan, G. (2006). Nonresponse and generalizability in academic research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 4–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossidy, L., & Charan, R. (2002). Execution: The discipline of getting things done. New York: Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, B., Phillips, L., & Tybout, A. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 197–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysts for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J., Mokwa, M., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Strategic types, distinctive marketing competencies, and performance: A multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. (2008). The stage-gate, idea-to-launch process—Update, what's new, NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., & Bower, J. (1996). Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure of leading firms. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. (2004). Organizational culture, market orientation, innovativeness, and firm performance: An international research odyssey. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing: Defining the research agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpande, R., Farley, J., & Webster, F. (1993). Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, H., Glick, W., & Huber, G. (1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 1196–1250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J., & Kazanjian, R. (1986). Strategy implementation: structure, systems, and process. Egan: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cuedek, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing's influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G., & Power, D. (1985). Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrebiniak, L., & Joyce, W. (1985). Organizational adaptation: Strategic choice and environmental determinism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuno, K., & Mentzer, J. (2000). The effects of strategy type on the market orientation–performance relationship. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, J. (2006). ‘Way forward’ requires culture shift. Wall Street Journal, 23, B1. January.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFarlin, D., & Sweeney, P. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKee, D., Varadarajan, P. R., & Pride, W. (1989). Strategic adaptability and firm performance: A market-contingent perspective. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meehan, S., Barwise, P., Vandenbosch, M., Smit, W. (2007). The impact of organizational values on the effectiveness of market-oriented behaviors. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper #07-116.

  • Miles, R., & Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). The case for configuration. In J. Quinn & R. James (Eds.), The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, and cases (pp. 518–524). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E., Slater, S., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of fit among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument. In R. Woodman & W. Passmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 5, pp. 115–142). JAI: Greenwich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. P. (1991). How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(3), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, J., Korbin, W., & Viscarra, D. (1995). Corporate support in the aftermath of a natural disaster: Effects on employee strains. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 504–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, A., & Ball, A. D. (1981). Statistical power and effect size in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortell, S., & Zajac, E. (1990). Perceptual and archival measures of Miles and Snow’s strategic types: A comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 817–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S., & Olson, E. (2001). Marketing's contribution to the implementation of business strategy: An empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1055–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S., Hult, G. T. M., & Olson, E. (2007). On the importance of matching strategic behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D., & Morgan, N. (2003). A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with market performance. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 100–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, O., & Ruekert, R. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation of business strategies: A critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(3), 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Administration, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523-1278, USA

    Stanley F. Slater

  2. College of Business Administration, University of Colorado–Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, 80933-7150, USA

    Eric M. Olson

  3. College of Business Administration, University of Colorado–Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO, 80933-7150, USA

    Carol Finnegan

Authors
  1. Stanley F. Slater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric M. Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carol Finnegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stanley F. Slater.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Slater, S.F., Olson, E.M. & Finnegan, C. Business strategy, marketing organization culture, and performance. Mark Lett 22, 227–242 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9122-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9122-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation