مطالعه تاثیرپذیری عملکرد سازمان از پاسخگویی و مشروعیت داخلی واحد بازاریابی (مطالعه موردی شرکت های تولیدی صاحب برند)

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناس ارشد مدیریت اجرایی. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات خوزستان .گروه مدیریت اجرایی. خوزستان، اهواز

2 دانشیار دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، گروه مدیریت بازرگانی

چکیده

جوامع دانشگاهی و تجاری درباره چالش‌های فزاینده به وجود آمده درباره موقعیت و جایگاه بخش بازاریابی در داخل سازمان‌ها اتفاق نظر دارند. متخصصان و دانشگاهیان معتقدند که علیرغم نقش مهم بخش بازاریابی در اثرگذاری بر تصمیمات استراتژیک، به‌علت عدم پاسخگویی و مشروعیت داخلی، این بخش از حمایت‌ها و تشویق‌های لازم از طرف مدیران ارشد برخوردار نیست. هدف مطالعه حاضر تبیین روابط بین پاسخگویی و مشروعیت داخلی بازاریابی با عملکرد شرکت می‌باشد. روش پژوهش حاضر از نوع توصیفی- همبستگی است. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها یک پرسشنامه پژوهشگر ساخته، دارای طیف پنج گزینه‌ای لیکرت است که در میان نمونه آماری شامل315 نفر از مدیران میانی و کارمندان 35 شرکت صاحب برند در صنایع پوشاک، لوازم خانگی، صوتی و تصویری و مبلمان توزیع گردیده است. داده‌های گردآوری شده با استفاده از مدل معادلات ساختاری تحلیل گردیده است. نتایج حاصل از این تحقیق نشان داد که پاسخگویی داخلی بخش بازاریابی تاثیر مثبت و معناداری بر مشروعیت داخلی آن و متعاقبا عملکرد شرکت داشته است. به بیان دقیق‌تر با افزایش پاسخگویی بخش بازاریابی، مشروعیت آن بخش در بین سایر بخش‌ها افزایش یافته و این امر منجر به بهبود عملکرد شرکت می شود.  این در حالی است که با اینکه تاثیر مثبت و معنادار مشروعیت بخش بازاریابی بر همکاری و تسهیم دانش سایر بخش‌ها با بخش مذکور تایید شد ولی تنها همکاری تاثیر مثبت و معنادار خود را بر عملکرد شرکت نشان داد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

How much does organization performance influenced from marketing's internal legitimacy and accountability? (The case study of the productive brand owner firms)

نویسندگان [English]

  • shaiva Yazdanfar 1
  • Bahman Hajipour 2
چکیده [English]

Consensus exists in the academic and business experts regarding the growing challenges in the status of the marketing department within the organization. Practitioners and academics suggest that the department does not get enough acknowledge elements from the upper echelon due to its lack of accountability and internal legitimacy, despite its pivotal role in influencing the company's strategic direction. The aim of this study is explaining the relationship between the marketing's accountability and internal legitimacy by the firm performance. The methodology of the current study is a kind of descriptive-correlational one. The data collection instrument is a researcher-made questionnaire including a five-choice-range of Likert which has been distributed among the statistical sample of 315 of the middle managers and the employees of 35 brand owner firms in the clothing, home appliances, audio-visual, and furniture industries. The collected data has been analyzed using the structural equations modeling. The obtained results of the study indicated that the internal accountability of the marketing segment has a significant positive effect on the internal legitimacy and consequently its performance. More precisely, by increasing the marketing's accountability, the legitimacy of that segment has increased among other segments and this caused the firm performance improvement. However, the significant positive effect of the marketing's legitimacy on the willingness to collaborate and share knowledge with the mentioned segment has been confirmed, only the willingness to collaborate indicated its significant positive effect on the firm performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Marketing department
  • accountability
  • Legitimacy
  • Willingness to Collaborate
  • Willingness to Share Knowledge
  • Firm Performance
  1. Aldrich, H.E.,( 1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.
  2. BusinessWeek. The world's most innovative companies;( 2006). p. 63 –74. April 24.
  3. Chaw,W.S., Chan, L.S.,(2008).Social  Network,  Social  Trust  and  Shared Goals  in  Organizational  Knowledge  Sharing. Information  and Management. 45: 458-465.
  4. Chun,E.Niehm, L.S.,(2010).Collaboration strategies of fashion companies and customer attitudes.  Glob Acad Marketing Sci. 20(1): 4-14.
  5. Clark, N.,(2008).Spend for survival. Marketing: 26 – 7 October 8.
  6. CMO Council. State of marketing: outlook, intentions and investments for (2010). Retrieved June 7, 2010, from http://www.cmocouncil.org/resources/form_2010_marketing_outlook. asp2010.      
  7. Crosno, J. Freling, T.H., Skinner, S.J.,(2009).does brand social power mean market might? Exploring the influence of brand social power on brand evaluation. psychology & marketing. 26: 91-121.
  8. De Luca, L.M., Atua hene-Gima, K.,(2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the differen t routes to product innovation performance. Marketing. 71(1):95-112.
  9. Deephouse. D.L & Suchman. M.,(2008).The Handbook Of Organizational Institutionalism. SAGE publication.
  10. Deloitte. Leadership for growth. Retrieved June 7,( 2010). from http://www.deloitte.- com/view/en_GB/uk/services/consulting/facbf6d40b00e110VgnVCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm2008.
  11. Dowling, J. Pfeffer, J.,(1975).Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational behavior. Pac  Sociological Rev.18(1):122 – 36.
  12. Frankwick, G.L., Ward, J.C., Hutt, M.D., Reingen, P.H.,(1994).Evolving patterns of organizational beliefs in the   formation of strategy.  Marketing .58:96-110 April.
  13. Glynn, M.A. & Abzug, R.,(2002). Institutionalizing Identity: Symbolic Isomorphism and Organizational Names. Academy of Management Journal
    45(1):267-280.
  14. Goldsmith, M. The changing role of the CMO. Retrieved June 7,(2010)., from http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/mar2009/ca20090331_196711.htm2009 Business Week Online.
  15. Gray, P.H., Meister, D.B.,(2004).Knowledge sourcing effectiveness. Manage Sci. 50(6): 821 – 34.
  16. Griffin, A. Hauser, J.R.,(1992).Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of the literature. Prod Innov Manag e 1992a;13:191 –215.
  17. Griffin, A. Hauser, J.R.,(1992).Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing: a comparison between two product teams. Manage Sci 1992b;38(3):360–73.
  18. Guthrie, J. Parker, L.D.,(1989) Corporate social disclosure practice: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Acc Bus Res. 19(76): 43– 52.
  19. Hannan, M. T.  & Freeman, J.,(1989).Organizations and Social Structure in Organizational Ecology, Cambridge, Harvard, U. Press. 3-27.
  20. Hirsch, P. M. and Andrews, J.A.Y.,(1984).Administrators’ response to performance and value challenges: stance, symbols, and behavior. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 170–85.
  21. Homburg C, Workman JP, Krohmer H. Marketing's infl uence within the firm. J Marketing 1999;63:1-17 April.
  22. Huang, C.C.,(2009).Knowledge Sharing and Group Cohesiveness on Performance: An Empirical Study of Technology R&D Teams in Taiwan. Technovation. 29:786-797.
  23. Huber, G.P.,(1991).Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ Sci. 2(1):88-11 5.
  24. Kahn, K.B.,(1996).Interdepartmental integration: a definition with implications for product development performance. Prod Innov Manage. 13(2):137 –51.
  25. Kahn, K.B.,(2001).Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance.  Prod Innov Manage.18(5):314 – 23.
  26. Kahn, K.B., Mentzer, J.T.,(1998).Marketing's in te gration w ith other departments. Bus Res. 41 (1):53–62.
  27. Kim, S. Ju, B.,(2008).An Analysis of Faculty Perceptions: Attitudes Toward Knowledge  Sharing  and  Collaboration  in  an  Academic  Institution.  Information Science Research. 30:282-290.
  28. Kotler, P.H., Armstrong, G. Saunders, J. Wong, V. Principles of marketing. Second European Edition:(1999).    
  29. Lee, B.H.,(2008).Transfer of market ing knowledge within multinational corporations and its impact on performance: moderating effects of absorptive capacity, sociali zation, and local knowledge. Glob Acad Marketing Sci. 8(4): 277–306.
  30. Lee, J.H.,(2001).Competition strategies for traditional market: focus on strength strategies of inner core competency. Glob Acad Marketing Sci .55 –69 i.
  31. Levitt T. The marketing mode. New York: Mc Graw-Hill;(1969).
  32. Madhavan, R. Grover, R.,(1998).From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. Marketing. 62(4):1-12.
  33. Mahama, H.,(2006). Management Contral System,Cooperation and Performance in Strategic Supply Relationships: A Survey in the Mines. Management Accounting Research. 17:315-339.
  34. Maltz, E. Kohli, A.K.,(1996).Market ntelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Marketing Res. 33(1):47 – 61.
  35. Marcus, S.,(1973).Introduction part 2: the basic issues: societal demands and the viability of social responsibility. Corporate social accounting. New York: Praeger: 43 –9.
  36. Mathews, M.R. Socially responsible accounting. London: Chapman & Hall;(1993).
  37. Maurer, J.K. Readings in organizational theory: open system app roaches. New York: Random House ;(1971).
  38. McDonald, M & Mouncey, P.,(2009).Marketing Accountability. Kogan Page Publication
  39. Miles, R.H. Macro organizational behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman;(1980).
  40. Moorman, C.,(1995).Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Marketing Res. 32:318 –35 August.
  41. Moorman, C. Rust, R.T.,(1999).The role of marketing. Marketing. 63(4):180 – 97.
  42. Noh, J.,(2009).The effect of mutual trust on relational performance in supplier–buyer relationships for business services transactions. Glob Acad Marketing Sci.19(4):32–49.
  43. Oliver, C.,(1997).Sustainable competitive advantage: combining institutional and resource based views. Strategic Manage.18(9):697 –713.
  44. O'Sullivan, D. Abela, A.V.,(2007).Marketing performance measurement ability and firm performance. Marketing. 71(2):79 – 93.
  45. Park, H.S., Ahu, S. Maher, A. and Singhapakdi, A.,(2011).Marketing's Accountability and Internal legitimacy: Implications for Firm Performance. Business Research. 65:1576-1582.
  46. Parsons, T.,(1956).Suggestion for a sociological approach to the theory of organization. Adm Sci Q. 1(1):63 –85.
  47. Parsons, T.,(1960).Structure and Process in Modern Societies. New York: Free Press.
  48. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R.,(1978).The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York.
  49. Powell, W.W & DiMaggio, P.J.,(1991).The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Academy of Management Journal. 17( 3):612-615.
  50. Quelch, J.A., Jocz, K.E,(2009).How to marke t in a downturn. Harv Bus Rev :52 –62 April.
  51. Randolph, W.A., Posner, B.Z.,(1992).Getting the job done: managing project teams and task forces for success. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  52. Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R.,(1998).A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4):877-904.
  53. Schuman, M.C.,(1995).Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review. 20(3):571-610.
  54. Scott, W.R.,(1991).Unpacking institutional arguments. In: Powell WW, DiMagg io PJ, editors. The new institutiona lism in organizationa l analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press:164– 82.
  55. Selznick, P.,(1949).TVA and the grassroots: A study of politics and organization. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  56. Shin, G.C., Ma, Y.,(1991).The determina tion of trust in franchisor –franchi see relationships in China. Glob Acad Marketing Sci 18(2):65 – 88.
  57. Sobek, D.K., Liker, J.K., Ward, A.,(1998).Another look at how Toyota integrates product development. Harv Bus Rev. 76(4): 36– 49.
  58. Song, X.M., Parry, M.E.,(1997).The determinants of Japanese new product successes. Marketing Res. 34(1):64 –76.
  59. Stillman, P.G.,(1974).The Concept of  Legitimacy. Palgrave Macmillan j. 7(1): 32-56.
  60. Suchman, M.C.,(1995).Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manage Rev. 20(3):571 –610.
  61. Tilling, M.V.,(2005).Refinement to legitimacy theory in social and environmental accounting: Commerce research paper series. 04(6).
  62. Troy, L.C., Hirunyawipada, T. Paswan, A.K..,(2008).Cross-functional integration and new product success: an empir ical investigation of the findings. Marketing. 72:132 –46 November.
  63. Verhoef, P.C., Lee flang, P.S.H.,(2009).Understanding the marketing department's influence within the firm. Marketing. 7:14 –37 March.
  64. Weber, M.,(1978).Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1978.
  65. Webster, F.E.,(2005).Malter AJ, Ganesan S. The decline and disperse on of marketing competence. Sloan Manage Rev. 46:35 –43 summer.
  66. Whetten, D.A., Cameron K.S.,(2010).Developing management skills. Eighth Edition:2010.744.
  67. Wilkinson, C.,(1983).Organizational control: a resource dependence approach.New perspectives in management control. London: Macmillan Press. 118–33.