organizational culture and marketing

8/13/2019 Organizational Culture and Marketing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/organizational-culture-and-marketing 1/14

Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research AgendaAuthor(s): Rohit Deshpande and Frederick E. Webster, Jr.Source: Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 3-15Published by: American Marketing AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251521 .

Accessed: 07/01/2014 01:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251521?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251521?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama



Rohit Deshpande & Frederick E. Webster, Jr.

rganizationalulture n d

Marketing efining t h e

Research gendaContemporary work on marketing management is grounded implicitly in a structural functionalist or con-

tingency perspective of organizational functioning. However, the field of organizational behavior from

which such a perspective derives has recently developed a major thrust into theoretical modeling and

empirical research on organizational culture. The authors survey this emerging literature on organiza-tional culture, integrate it in a conceptual framework, and then develop a research agenda in marketing

grounded in the five cultural paradigms of comparative management, contingency management, orga-nizational cognition, organizational symbolism, and structural/psychodynamism.

\(W HEN Drucker (1954) first articulated the mar-

keting concept, he noted that marketing was not

really a separate management function but rather the

whole business as seen from the customer's point of

view. In other words, the marketing concept definesa distinct organizational culture, a fundamental shared

set of beliefs and values that put the customer in the

center of the firm's thinking about strategy and op-erations.

Despite this centrality of organizational culture to

marketing management issues, there has been rela-

tively little scholarly study of its impact in a market-

ing context. This lack of scrutiny perhaps reflects, as

Ruekert and Walker (1987) suggest, the relatively

greater attention given to consumer than to organi-zational issues in marketing in general. For example,

Rohit eshpandesAssociaterofessorfMarketing,mosTuckchoolof Business dministration,artmouthollege. rederick.Webster,Jr. s E.B.Osborn rofessorf Marketingtthe AmosTuck chool,ExecutiveirectorftheMarketingciencenstitute,ndVisitingro-fessor f Business dministrationt the Harvardusiness chool.Theauthors regratefulorcommentsnpreviousersions f the article

bySusanAshford,jayKohli,cottNeslin,amesWalsh,KarlWeick,and heJMeditor ndanonymouseviewers.heresearch assup-portednpart y heMatthewsundranto theTuck ssociates ro-

gram ndby heMarketingcience nstitute.

when marketing scholars turned to the behavioral sci-

ences for guidance beginning in the late 1950s and

especially the 1960s, the study of culture focused ex-

clusively on understanding consumer behavior, par-

ticularly the definition of cultures and subcultures asmarket segments, culture as communication, the dif-

fusion of innovations, and cross-cultural comparisonsof international markets (Engel, Kollat, and Black-

well 1968; Zaltman 1965). Subsequent treatments of

culture in marketing also have been limited mostly to

the consumer behavior area.

Several scholars recently have begun to recognizethe importance of organizational culture in the man-

agement of the marketing function. Weitz, Sujan, and

Sujan (1986) included organizational culture conceptsin their development of a model of selling effective-

ness. Parasuraman and Deshpande (1984) suggestedthat greater attention be paid to organizational culture

along with structural explanations for managerial ef-

fectiveness. Additionally, heightened concern for is-

sues of implementation in marketing strategy (Walkerand Ruekert 1987) and the development of a customer

orientation within organizations is also raising ques-tions related specifically to organizational culture

(Bonoma 1984; Deshpande and Parasuraman 1986;

Webster 1981, 1988). In fact, Mahajan, Varadarajan,Kerin (1987) have gone so far as to suggest that the

Journal of MarketingVol. 53 (January 1989), 3-15. Organizational ulture ndMarketing 3

This content downloaded from 14.139.186.178 on Tue, 7 Jan 2014 01:21:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






next phase of development of the field of strategicmarketplanningmust involve a formalintegrationof

organizational ulture issues.In contrastto the scant attentiongiven to organi-

zationalculturein marketing,a majorthrust nto the-oreticalmodeling andempiricalresearchon the topichas occurred in the field of organizationalbehavior

(Hofstede 1986; Jelinek, Smircich, and Hirsch 1983;

Kilmann, Saxton,and

Serpa 1985;Sathe

1983;SchwartzandDavis 1981). As a result,within the past10 years, organizational ulturehas become one of themost active research areas within the discipline (Al-laireand Firsirotu1984; Frost et al. 1985; Ouchi andWilkins 1985). In addition,practitionernterest n the

topic is evident from the success of books emphasiz-ing the cultural determinants of corporate perfor-mance (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Ouchi 1981; Petersand Waterman1982), including the major theme of

comparing he functioningof American andJapanesefirms with culture as a principalexplanatoryvariable

(Pascaleand Athos 1981).

Despite the growinginterest n organizational ul-tureamongbehavioralscientistsandpractitioners,no

strongconsensushas formedabout a definitionof the

term.Hence some people have concludederroneouslythattheconceptitself is amorphous.The differentdef-

initions stem from differenttheoreticalbases for the

concept. To providea basis for furtherdiscussion, we

define organizationalcultureas thepattern of shared

values and beliefs that help individuals understand or-

ganizationalfunctioning and thus provide them norms

for behavior in the organization. That is, organiza-tional culture is relatedto the causalitythatmembers

impute to organizational functioning. We subse-quentlynote the rangeof alternativedefinitionsof or-

ganizationalcultureavailablein the literature.

The chief objective of our article is to encouragethe developmentof a streamof researchon organi-zational culture in marketing. However, an inade-

quate understandingby marketingreseachersof un-

resolved issues in the development of models of

organizational ulturecould lead to some false starts,weak integrationamong various researchprograms,

inappropriate pplicationof concepts of culture, and

inadequateattention o some of the basic issues of re-

searchmethodologybeing confrontedby researcherson organizational ulture.We thereforebegin by out-

lining the developmentof the field of organizationalcultureand discussing currentcontroversiesin defi-

nition and measurementn termsthatshouldbe useful

to marketingresearchers.We first provide an historicalperspective on the

development of theory in organizational culture,

drawingon work in anthropology,sociology, and or-

ganizationalbehavior.Then we describea conceptualframeworkof organizationalculture paradigms. Fi-

nally we discuss specific applications to marketingproblemsto provideresearch directions for program-matic work on the topic. Given the expanse of the

literature,ourpurposeis to describebriefly each ma-

jor theoreticalperspective on organizationalculturerather han to providean exhaustive review.

Development of the Field of

OrganizationalCulture:Historyand DefinitionalIssuesAs Ouchiand Wilkins (1985) note in a majorreview,the developmentof interestin the concept of culture

appliedto organizational unctioningwas due to the

realizationby organizational ociologists in the mid-

1970s that traditionalmodels of organizationsdid not

always help them to understandobserved disparitiesbetween organizationalgoals and actual outcomes,between strategy and implementation.Most formal

models of organizations ncorporated, n one way or

another,systems, structure,and people, but not cul-

ture (Schwartz and Davis 1981). For example, inLeavitt's (1964) model, organizations are seen as

multivariatesystems consisting of four sets of inter-

actingvariables: 1) tasks-the work to be performedto accomplishgoals, (2) structure-systems of com-

munication,authority,status,rewards,andworkflow,

(3) technology-problem-solving inventionsused bythe firm, and (4) people. Culture s a completely dif-

ferent component that also may contribute signifi-

cantlyto organizationalunctioningandmay affect the

otherfour subsystemsas a mediatingvariable.

In recent studiesof difficulties in strategicimple-

mentation and comparisons of the performanceofAmericanfirms with thatof European,Japanese,and

other Asian competitors,researchersbegan to intro-

duce concepts of cultureas possible explanationsfor

differences n competitiveeffectivenesswhenfew dif-

ferences in the structural haracteristicsof the orga-nizationswereevident(PascaleandAthos 1981). This

line of reasoningbegan to suggest thatmodels of or-

ganizationsthat did not include cultureas a specific

organizationalvariable were incomplete (Ouchi and

Wilkins 1985).

Despiteagreementaboutthe importanceof culture

as an organizational ariable,consensusaboutitsdef-

inition and measurement s lacking. We define orga-

nizationalcultureas the patternof sharedvalues and

beliefs that help membersof an organizationunder-

standwhy thingshappenandthus teach them the be-

havioralnormsin the organization.However, we also

highlightthevarietyof culturedefinitionsto show that

differentperspectiveson culturemay be highly rele-

vant for different marketingmanagementproblems.These differentdefinitionslead to several theoretical

dilemmas in defining and measuringorganizational

4 / Journalof Marketing,anuary1989







culture-for example, choosing between definitionsof culture in both anthropologyand organizationalstudies, the distinctionbetween culture and climate,the appropriateevel of analysis, whetherto use sur-

vey or ethnographicmeasurement,and the distinctionbetween cultureandsubcultures,ncluding"clans"and"native views."

EarlyDefinitions

In a seminalpaperby two anthropologists,164 defi-nitions of culturewere analyzedin detail and the re-

sults were summarizedas a consensus statementthat

culture"is a product; s historical; ncludesideas, pat-terns,andvalues; s selective; s learned;s basedupon

symbols;and is an abstraction rom behaviorand the

productsof behavior" KroeberandKluckhohn1952,

p. 157, quoted by BerelsonandSteiner1964, p. 644).

They found thatculturehad been definedvariouslyas

the values and beliefs shared by the members of a

society;thepatternsof behaving,feeling, andreactingsharedby a society, includingthe unstatedpremises

underlyingthatbehavior;learnedresponsesthatpre-viously have met with success; habitual and tradi-

tional ways of thinking,feeling, andreactingthatare

characteristic f the ways a particular roupof peoplemeets its problems;and anotherword for social real-

ity, the things people take for granted.

Specifically for the conceptof organizationalcul-

ture,definitions ffered n recentstudies nclude:"...

some underlyingstructureof meaning, that persistsover time, constrainingpeople's perception,interpre-tation, and behavior"(Jelinek, Smircich, and Hirsch

1983, p. 337), "a patternof beliefs and expectations

sharedby organizationmembers" Schwartzand Davis1981, p. 33), and "the system of . . . publicly and

collectively acceptedmeanings operatingfor a given

groupat a given time. This system of terms, forms,

categories, and images interpretsa people's own sit-

uationto themselves" (Pettigrew1979, p. 574).

Cultureand Climate

Distinguishingbetween the terms "culture"and "cli-

mate"as used in the organizationalbehavior iterature

is importantbecausesome theoristshave confusedthe

two. Cultureis a set of sharedassumptionsand un-

derstandingsaboutorganizational unctioning. Orga-nizationclimateis a relatedbutdifferentconcept. Cli-

materelates to members'perceptionsaboutthe extent

to which the organization s currentlyfulfilling their

expectations. Schneider and Rentsch (1987, p. 7)summarize he differenceclearly by statingthat "cli-

mate refers to the ways organizationsoperationalizethe themesthatpervadeeverydaybehavior-the rou-

tines of organizationsand the behaviors that get re-

warded,supportedandexpectedby organizations the'whathappensaroundhere'). Culturerefersto thehis-

tory and norms and values thatmembersbelieve un-

derlieclimate(the 'why do thingshappen he way theydo') and the meanings organizationalmembersshare

about the organization's mperative."

Level of Analysis

Some scholarsview organizationalculture as a prop-

erty of the groupor organization tself, like structure

or technology. Others view it as something that re-

sides within each individualas a functionof cognitiveand learning processes. As an individual property,culture is the evaluationspeople make of the social

context of the organization hatguide theirbehavior.

It is theirattempt o "makesense"of theorganization.Some arguethatculture s an exogenous environmen-

tal variable, one that cannot be managedbut rather

must be accommodated,whereas others see it as a

variableendogenousto the organization similarto or-

ganizationalstructure),mediatingthe way in which

the organization esponds o environmentaltimuliand

change. Still others argue that it is both process and

outcome because it shapes humaninteractionsand isalso the outcomeof those interactions Jelinek, Smir-

cich, and Hirsch 1983, p. 331). We believe that cul-

tureis all of these thingsbutthatthe differencesarise

because of differences in theoreticalapproach o the

concept. We subsequently discuss further whether

marketingresearchersshould view cultureas an ex-

ogenous or endogenousvariable, a propertyof indi-

viduals or of organizations,becauseeach perspectiveis appropriatedepending on the marketing problem

being addressed.

SurveyResearch Versus Ethnographic

Research

There s alsoheateddebatebetweenscholarswhowould

use ethnographicmethodsto study organizational ul-

tureand those who preferto use techniquesof statis-

tical inferenceappliedto datagathered hroughsurveyresearchmethods(Ouchi and Wilkins 1985, p. 475-

6). Ethnographicechniques ftenareusedfor thestudyof organizationalculture, whereas surveys are most

common for the study of organizationalclimate (cf.

Joyce andSlocum 1984). Criticsof the latterapproach

argue that the survey techniques themselves are a

productof cultureand thus are

culturallybiased and

"culture-bound."Hampton (1982) attemptedto de-

velop a survey questionnaireon culturebased on the

classic workof an anthropologistDouglas1982). Any

marketingresearcherwho wants to studycultureand

remainsensitive to suchmethodological ssues should

examine Hirschman's(1986) discussion of appropri-ateethnographicmethodsfor marketing esearch.Our

own position is that culturetopics in marketingcan

and should be studiedby both traditionalsurvey re-

search and ethnographicmethods. We more specifi-

OrganizationalulturendMarketing5







cally relate research topics to methodological ap-proachesin the marketingapplicationssection.

Subcultures, Clans, and Native Views

Another ssue is whetherorganizational ulture s pri-marily and typically a characteristicof the total or-

ganization,such as a corporation,or whether t is pri-marilya characteristicf groupsor "subcultures" ithinthe

organization.One dimension of this issue is the

extent to which organizationshave cultures that aredistinctfrom the "background"ultures n which theyexist. Such background ultures can take a varietyof

forms, including departmentalsubcultures such as

marketing,finance, and manufacturing.Wilkins andOuchi (1983, p. 468), for example, state: "Contraryto currentlypopularnotionsof organizational ulture,we claimthatthe existenceof local organizational ul-

tures that are distinct from more generally shared

backgroundculturesoccurs relatively infrequentlyat

the level of the wholeorganization." akingwhattheycall a "utilitarian" iew from a transactioncosts per-spective, they define three mechanisms-markets,bureaucracies,and clans-for regulating exchangesor transactionsand achieving the criterion of "rec-

iprocity,"meaningthat the transactionsareperceivedas equitableby the organizationmembers.Marketsuse

a price mechanism, bureaucratic elationshipsestab-

lish rights of evaluation and reward, and the clan

mechanism socializes the parties in such a way that

they see theirobjectivesas being congruentwith those

of the firm. Such a clan mechanism is one way of

thinkingaboutorganizational ulture.A similarview

has been developedby LebasandWeigenstein 1986).

To illustrate he operationof the clan mechanism,Wilkins and Ouchicite the practiceof Japanese irms

of hiring young recruits,socializing them, andbasing

payon seniority,notperformance.With a strongclan,members'inclinationis to do what is best for the or-

ganization.Elaboratesystems of performanceevalu-

ationand controlare not necessary.Wilkinsand Ouchi

conclude that entireorganizationsareless likely to de-

velop andmaintaina clanmechanism(i.e., "culture")than are functionalor professionalgroups within an

organization.Therefore,they argue, organizationsdo

not often have the richnessof a uniqueculture that is

characteristicof the paradigmatic ulturesstudiedbyanthropologists.For Ouchi and Wilkins, organiza-tionalculturegenerallyis seen best as a characteristic

of groupsrather han of total organizations.

Gregory(1983), in a frequentlycited article, like-

wise argues that any given organizationis likely to

comprise multiple cultures, which she refers to as

"nativeviews." She also argues that organizationalculture s essentiallya group-basedphenomenon.Us-

ing an ethnographicapproach, organized around a

conceptof cultureas a systemof meaningsand "learned

ways of coping with experience," she studied tech-nical professionalcompany employees in the Silicon

Valley of California.Oneof herprincipalconclusionsis thatmultipleculturesare not simplysubcultures uchas departmentsof the organization,but may also be

national,regional/geographic, r industrycultures hatare backgroundcontext for the organization,or maybe occupationaland ethnic culturesthat cut across a

given organization.Amongthe

many interestingis-

sues thatmarketingresearchersmight examine usingthis "nativeviews" conceptof cultureare conflict be-

tween sales and marketingdepartments,cooperationbetween R&D and marketingdepartmentsn the de-

velopmentof new products,and assignmentof sales

representatives o customers on the basis of ethnic,

regional, or professionalbackground imilarity.

A Conceptual Framework of

Organizational Culture ParadigmsThe differentconceptionsof culturelead to a bewil-

dering complexity in interpretation.To provide the-oreticalguidancefor researchersn marketing,we tryto integrate he organizational ehavior iteraturewhile

retainingthe importantdistinctionsbeing made. We

refer to Smircich's (1983a) insightful review of the

variousapproaches o the studyof organizational ul-

ture, which she summarizes nto five differentpara-

digms. In the first two, one can thinkof cultureas a

variable and in the others as a metaphorfor the or-

ganization tself. Table 1 lists the key theoretical ea-

turesof the five paradigms.

Cultureas a VariableIn the comparative management approach, culture can

be viewed as a variable exogenous to the firm, influ-

encing the development and reinforcementof core

beliefs andvalues withinthe organization e.g., a na-

tional culture). Such cross-culturalstudies of man-

agement typically are motivatedby a search for ex-

planationsfor differencesin organizationaloutcomes

such as job satisfactionin U.S. and Mexican firms

(Slocum 1971) or effectiveness, as in the many stud-

ies of JapaneseversusAmericanmanagement nd their

differencesbased on the differences in Japaneseand

U.S. nationalcultures(Pascale and Athos 1981).In studies with a contingency management per-

spective, culture is seen as an independentvariable

endogenousto the firm, consistingof beliefs andval-

ues developed by and within the organization(Dealand Kennedy 1982; Peters and Waterman1982). In

contingency models, measures of corporateperfor-manceareinfluencedn significantandsystematicways

by the sharedvalues, beliefs, identities, andcommit-

ment of organizationalmembers. The contingency

managementperspectiveon organizationalcultureis

6 / JournalfMarketing,anuary989







TABLE 1Theoretical Features of Organizational Culture Paradigms'

OrganizationalParadigm

1. Comparativemanagement

2. Contingencymanagement

3. Organizationalcognition

4. Organizationalsymbolism

5. Structural/psychodynamicperspective

aAdaptedrom Smircich 1983a)

Key Theoretical Features

Grounded in functionalism (Malinowski 1961) andclassical management theory (Barnard 1938)

Grounded in structural functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown 1952) and contingency theory(Thompson 1967)

Grounded in ethnoscience (Goodenough 1971)and cognitive organization theory (Weick 1979)

Grounded in symbolic anthropology (Geertz 1973)and symbolic organization theory (Dandridge,Mitroff,and Joyce 1980)

Grounded in structuralism (Levi-Strauss 1963) andtransformational organizational theory (Turner1983)

Locus of Culture

Exogenous, independent variable

Endogenous, independentvariable

Culture as metaphor for

organizational knowledgesystems

Culture as metaphor for sharedsymbols and meanings

Culture as metaphor forunconscious mind

complementary to traditional contingency frameworks

used to investigate such variables as structure, size,and technology of an organization (Pugh and Hickson

1976), and which in turn are grounded in functionalist

theory in sociology (Parsons 1956). Like the com-

parative management approach, contingency manage-ment research is explicitly interventionist. As Smir-

cich (1983a, p. 345) notes, researchers believe that

cultural artifacts "can be used to build organizational

commitment, convey a philosophy of management,rationalize and legitimate activity, motivate person-

nel, and facilitate socialization."

The comparative management and contingency

management views of organizational culture reflect amotivation to understand culture as a lever or tool to

be used by managers to implement strategy and to di-

rect the course of their organizations more effectively,to make culture and strategy consistent with and sup-

portive of one another. As Smircich (1983a, p. 346-

7) notes about these approaches, they tend to be "op-timistic" and "messianic" (perhaps as a reflection of

their structural functionalist nature) and to overlook

the likelihood that multiple cultures, subcultures, and

especially countercultures are competing to define for

their members the nature of situations within organi-

zational boundaries.

Culture as a Metaphor

Three other provocative ways of thinking about or-

ganizational culture are theoretically grounded in an-

thropology rather than in sociology. They describe

culture not as a variable but as a root metaphor for

the organization itself; culture is not something an or-

ganization "has" but what it "is." In these perspec-

tives, organizations are to be understood not just in

economic or material terms, but in terms of their ex-

pressive, ideational, and symbolic aspects. The three

perspectives are called "cognitive," "symbolic," and

"structural/psychodynamic."

In the organizational cognition perspective on or-

ganizational culture, the task of the researcher is to

understand what the "rules" are that guide behavior-

the shared cognitions, systems of values and beliefs,

the unique ways in which organization members per-ceive and organize their world (Weick 1985). For ex-

ample, researchers following this tradition have iden-

tified common ideational patterns within American

organizations which they label as "entrepreneurial,"

"scientific," and "humanistic" (Litterer and Young

1981). Shrivastavaand Mitroff (1983) suggest a methodfor identifying the "frames of reference" managers use

in assessing acceptability of new information. Anal-

ogous to the cognitive paradigm in much of consumer

behavior research, this organizational culture perspec-tive focuses on the mind of the manager and views

organizations as knowledge systems.In an organizational symbolism perspective, an or-

ganization, like a society, is a system of shared mean-

ings and symbols, a pattern of symbolic discourse that

provides a background against which organizationmembers organize and interpret their experience,

looking for clues as to what constitutes appropriatebehavior (Pondy et al. 1985). Researchers using this

approach characteristically search for ways in which

organizations can and do "socialize" new members to

achieve coordinated action and a sense of organiza-tional identity and commitment. An example is the

ethnographic study by Smircich (1983b) of the ex-

ecutive staff of an unnamed insurance company. Her

work describes the corporate ethos ("if you've got

anything that is controversial, you just don't bring it

up"), organizational slogans ("wheeling together"),








rituals the"Mondaymorning taffmeeting"),and other

symbolic processes that help create sharedorganiza-tional meanings.

From a structural/psychodynamic perspective, the

researchgoal is to discoverstructural atterns hatlinkthe unconscious human mind with overt manifesta-tions in social arrangements.Researcherssee orga-nizations as a form of humanexpressionratherthanas goal-oriented,

problem-solvingnstruments.An il-

lustration s the work of Mitroff (1982), who drawson Jungian archetypesto suggest a fourfold classifi-cation of managerialstyles based on combinationsof

thinking, feeling, intuition,and sensing.The more traditional tructural/functionalist iews

of organizational ulture,as embodiedin the first two

approachesof comparative managementand contin-

gency management,are more theoreticallyand meth-

odologically consistent with the organizationalso-

ciology perspective in which much marketingmanagement iteratures implicitlygrounded.(Foranexcellentrecentexampleof thisperspective, ee Walker

andRuekert1987). They are also consistent with theimplicitlyinstrumental erspectiveof much of this lit-erature.However, it is vitally important hat market-

ing researchers,as they read the backgrounditeraturefrom organizationalbehavior, recognize the diverse

conceptual and theoretical perspectives guiding re-

searchin thatfield. For instance, in some specific in-

vestigations,such as those exploringthe determinantsof innovativeness n an organizationor the processesby which new sales representatives reintegrated ntoa salesforce, the cognitive or symbolic perspectiveon

organizational ulturemaybe much more relevant.To

encouragemarketing cholarsto pursuesuch inquiry,we now turn to more specific applicationsof these

theoretical perspectives to marketing management

problems.

Concepts of OrganizationalCultureApplied to Marketing

Specific theoretical tructuresmightbe appropriateor

specific marketingproblems.In definingthe research

agenda ororganizationalulturen marketing,t makes

sense to try to identify a set of researchissues that

mightflow from theorganizational ultureparadigms.Thoughwe cannotbe exhaustivein such an endeavor,we hope to be provocativein suggestingresearchdi-

rectionsthatwill develop relativelyunexplored ntel-

lectual territory n marketing.Our specific objective in developing a research

agendaon organizational ulturetopics for marketingscholars is to contributeto the study of marketing

management.In this endeavor we are explicitly in-

terventionist,but are committedto the premise that

managementpractice, and the teaching of marketing

to futuremanagers, is strengthenedby the develop-ment andapplicationof soundtheory.We believe that

improving marketing management serves to make

companies more responsive to customer needs (and,as noted before, a customer orientation s a type of

organizational ulture).Hence, thoughwe distinguishbetween the first two and the other three paradigmsof organizationalculture on the basis of an instru-

mental-metaphoricallassification, we now examine

all five paradigms n terms of their potentialcontri-butions to the study and improvementof marketingmanagement.Table 2 summarizes the marketingre-search and methodological implications of the five

paradigms.

ComparativeMarketing Management

Relatively ittleresearch,especiallyempirical,has been

doneon cross-nationalmarketingmanagementssues.

Even single-countrystudies of problems facing mar-

keting managers re scarceandfew attemptshave been

made to generalize knowledge about these problems

(or examine the limits of such generalizability).Wesee an opportunityor the rigorousapplicationof con-

cepts of organizationalculture to enhance signifi-

cantly the researchon basic issues of standardization

versus customizationof internationalmarketing pro-

grams.Improvedcommunication echnologies and distri-

butionsystems, as well as the developmentof global

marketingstrategies, have led to a greaterneed for

knowledge about marketingmanagementissues that

traversenationalboundaries(Davidson 1982). How-

ever, what little work has been reported n the com-

parativemarketing iterature an be classified primar-ily as cross-nationalconsumerbehavior, rather than

comparativemarketingmanagement,research.

We can begin to rectify this omission if we take

as one majoravenueof inquirythe success or failure

of multinational orporations whetherAmerican,Eu-

ropean,Japanese,or other)in "exporting" heir mar-

keting practices. This issue involves the very funda-

mentalsof the globalizationcontroversy.As QuelchandHoff (1986) pointout, thebasicquestion n global

marketing s not whether or not to "go global," but

rather o whatdegree. The issue addressedhere is not

how to tailormarketingprograms includingproductsandcommunications) o customers,but ratherhow to

adaptmanagementpolicies, programs,and structures

to local personnel, channel institutions, and organi-zations.A comparativemanagement pproachs need-

ed to examine the specific aspects of a local culture

thatnecessitatemodification/adaptationof marketing

strategy n orderfor the strategyto be successful. As

Quelch and Hoff note, the Coca-Cola Companyand

Nestle have very differentapproaches o global mar-

keting-Coca-Cola being a greateradherentof stan-

8 / Journalf Marketing,anuary989







TABLE 2Implications of Organizational Culture Paradigms for Marketing Research and Methodology

OrganizationalParadigm

1. Cbmparativemarketingmanagement

2. Contingencymarketingmanagement

3. Marketingcognition

4. Marketing

symbolism

5. Structural/psychodynamicperspective in

marketing

Marketing Research Implications

Cross-culturalstudy of standardization vs.customization of international marketing programs

Research on relative effectiveness of cost-based vs.culture-based marketing control mechanisms in

different countries

Research on impact of customer needs satisfaction-oriented culture vs. stockholder wealthmaximization-orientedculture on market

performance

Relative impact of organizational structure andculture on innovativeness

Research on making marketing strategy consistentwith culture and structure

Role of CEOin creating and disseminating acustomer orientation

Extent of differentiation of marketing department ina firm and its impact on "marketing marketing"to

top management

Impactof environmental change on the nature andeffectiveness of brand management structures

Research on the creation, dissemination, and use of

marketing knowledge in firms

Study of impact of organizational restructuringonshared marketing cognitions

Research on sources of organizational conflicts

involving marketing and other departments (e.g.,marketing/R&Dconflicts in new productdevelopment process)

Research on the socialization of new marketingrecruits

Impact of strong marketing socialization on

creativity and innovativeness

Study of importance of organizational symbols insales transactions

Research on the historical development of "market-driven" firms as expression of founders' wills

Methodological Implications

Cross-sectional survey research

Cross-sectional survey researchor ethnographic methods

Ethnographicor

phenomenological research

Ethnographicor

phenomenological research

Ethnographicor historicalresearch

dardization and Nestle believing in local market ad-

aptation-yet both are extremely successful consumer

goods marketers.Though several thoughtful conceptual articles have

been written on the relevance of national culture to

globalization (Levitt 1983), few empirical studies have

examined the issue. An important exception is the re-

cent work of Gatignon and Anderson (1987) who use

transaction cost analysis to explain the extent of con-

trol exerted by multinational corporations over their

foreign subsidiaries. They find that American mul-

tinationals generally take lower control levels in

countries where a greater "sociocultural distance" is

perceived (i.e., where American executives feel un-

comfortable with the values and operating methods in

a host country).Clearly the success of any international marketing

strategy depends not only on the extent of its con-

formity to customer cultural norms but also on the

conformity with the values and beliefs of employeesin various host countries, as Hofstede's (1980) land-

mark survey of the work-related values of 116,000

respondents in 40 countries suggests in a broader

management context. For example, are marketing

managers in an East Asian subsidiary of a British par-ent company more or less likely than their East Af-


l







rican counterpartsto adopt British marketing pro-grams?An interestingopicin thiscontext s theresidual

impactof colonial heritageson the relativerateof dif-fusion of Europeanmarketingstrategies n Asian andAfricancultures.

Anotherrelatedtopic of interest s the relative ef-fectiveness of variousmarketingcontrol mechanismsfor differentnationalor regional cultures. Marketingcontrol has been defined as a

systemof

methods,pro-cedures, and devices used by marketingmanagerstoensurecompliancewith marketingpolicies and strat-

egies (Parkand Zaltman1987, p. 599-600). Discus-sions of such marketing ontrolsystemstypicallyhavebeen framed in traditionalaccounting theory involv-

ing cost and performancevariance monitoring(An-

thony, Dearden,andBradford1984;HulbertandToy1977), yet a comparativemarketingmanagementper-spective suggests an importantalternativemechanismfor implementingmarketingcontrol. Ouchi (1980, p.132) provides the illustrationof Japanesefirms ex-

ercising a form of "clancontrol," trainingtheir em-

ployees so they need not be monitoredclosely: "It isnot necessaryfor these organizations o measureper-formance to control or direct their employees, sincethe employees' natural socialized) intention is to dowhat is best for the firm." This approachallows si-multaneous discretion and control, with people ex-

pressingautonomywithin cultural imits. It is an im-

portant lternativeo traditionalmechanismsof control,which frequentlyhave the counterproductiveesultof

creatingresistanceamong employees who see it as a

correctiveratherthan a monitoringdevice (Jaworski1988). Lebas and Weigenstein(1986) furthersuggest

that culturecontrolis graduallyreplacingrules-basedcontrol as organizationsundergoingproductivityde-

clines searchfor new ways of managing employees.An areaof research nquiry or marketing cholars

is the extent to which such alternative orms of mar-

keting control can lead to equivalentor higher pro-

ductivityin variouscustomercontactfunctions.Three

such functions are salesforce, distributor,and cus-

tomerservicemanagement.Is clan controlsuperior o

cost/performance-orientedmarketingcontrolin these

marketing unctions in different countriesin which a

multinational irmoperates(e.g., in monitoringsales-

forceperformancen FranceandGermany)?Does thissuperiorityarynotonly by countrybutby region(e.g.,are there southwesternand northeasterndifferences

within the U.S. in termsof the relativeeffectiveness

of accounting-basedversus culture-basedmarketingcontrol mechanismsin distributionchannel manage-ment)?

Because each of the threeresearchtopics noted is

grounded in the comparativemanagement perspec-tive, it seems sensible to at least begin the empirical

inquiry by using survey research methods. Those

methodshave been used successfully in several anal-

ogous studieson organizational ulturesuch as that ofHofstede(1980) and could be adaptedsuccessfully to

marketing nquiries.Further, he polling of managersin several nations about which marketingpracticesaresuccesses and failures is well suited to survey meth-ods.

Contingency Marketing Management

Surveyresearchalso mightbe appropriateat least forthe initial exploration) n the examinationof market-

ing managementproblems from a contingency cul-tural viewpoint. This perspective is likely to be themostnaturalone for marketing cholarsbecause much

marketing managementliterature s groundedeither

explicitly or implicitly in a structural-functionalist

paradigmthat is the philosophicalfoundation of the

organizational ultureperspective.Such workhas ex-

amined, for example, the impact of organizationalstructure formalization,centralization,andcomplex-

ity of the organization)on marketingplan utilization

(John and Martin 1984) and the performanceof or-ganizational uyingcenters(SpekmanandStern1979).

An importantavenue for research in contingencymarketing management s to examine the impact of

an organization'svalues and beliefs on marketper-formance. For instance, one might compare an or-

ganizationalcultureemphasizingprimarilythe satis-

faction of customer needs with one emphasizing

primarilystockholderwealth maximizationon such

measuresas long- and short-runsales growth, earn-

ings per share, marketshare, and returnon equity.The formertype of organizationalcultureis the sub-

ject of growing attentionamong marketingscholarsand practitioners.Webster(1988) points to evidence

in the business pressof companiesthat have made an

intellectual commitment to being customer-oriented

but are finding it difficult to achieve that reorienta-

tion. What are the culturaltraits, the shared values

and beliefs, that are characteristicof a customer-ori-

ented, market-drivennterprise? nitialworkhas been

reportedby both academicsandpractitionerswho are

interestedn thetopic (Drumwright 987;Kutner1987;Ruekertand Naditch 1987; Sakach 1987). Partof the

difficultyof conductingsuch research s in operation-

alizing measuresof organizationalculture. Examplesof how it might be done are provided in the recent

work of anorganizational ociologist (Reynolds 1986)which,thoughpreliminary, rovidesdirectionsor scale

development that are of interest to marketing re-

searchers.A relatedresearchstudycould examinethe impact

of both culturaland structuralmeasures n explaininga dependentvariableof interest(Davis 1984). For in-

stance, one could examine the influence of organi-zational values and beliefs along with organizational

10 / Journalf Marketing,anuary989







formalization and centralization on innovativeness

(Cherianand Deshpande 1985). The premise wouldbe thatneitherstructurenor cultureper se would en-

couragegreater nnovativeness as much as would theinteractionbetween a particular et of culturalbeliefsand a specific kind of organizational tructure.

This last issue is important o scholars in both or-

ganizational behavior and strategic management.

Schwartzand Davis (1981) argue that organizationstructureand culture must be balanced and internallyconsistent and also must fit strategy f thatstrategy sto be implemented. They point to the mismatch of

strategy, structure,and culture as the reason for thefailureof formerPresident WalterSpencer's plan to

change Sherwin-WilliamsCompanyfrom a produc-tion to a marketingorientationand as a majorreasonfor the difficultiesin integrating he mergedRockwelland North American companies. Further, Wheel-

wright(1984) notes in a perceptivearticle on the his-

tory of strategic planning that an overly analyticalstrategicapproach hat did not take into account man-

agers'values and beliefs helpsto explainboth the fail-ureof Texas Instrumentsn implementing ts strategic

plansandthe success of HewlettPackard,which tookthe oppositeapproach.Wheelwrightdescribes such avalue-based incrementalapproachto strategic plan-ning as one in which the beliefs of managers and

workersin a firm are the key to setting its long-termdirection,taking precedenceover the actions of com-

petitorsand the structureof its productmarkets. He

cites the work of Quinn (1980) on logical incremen-

talism as being a good example of this approach n

the strategicmanagement iterature.

Most literatureon organizationalculture treats itas a top-downphenomenonwith a criticalrole being

played by the CEO (frequentlyin conjunctionwith,or as a memberof, a founding family) in both estab-

lishing culturalnorms and overseeing their diffusionin the firm (Schein 1984). Hence, an interesting opicfor research s the role of the CEO in developing and

implementinga customerorientationin a firm. The

argumentsof Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) and our pre-

liminaryfield researchsuggest, however, that it maybe more productiveto study culture at the SBU or

divisional or even departmentalevel as it relates to

the developmentof a customer-orientedview of thebusiness.

A relatedtopic in contingencymarketingmanage-ment is the role of the marketingdepartment n an

SBU. Is therean optimaldegree of differentiationof

"marketing" s a separate,distinct subculturewithin

the businessunit? We can think of the marketingde-

partment reatingresistanceif its role is perceivedas

beingtoogreat,butbeingunable o functionas a change

agentwithin an organization f its role is perceivedas

beingtoo slight. Therole of the marketingdepartment

should be studied within an evolutionaryperspective.Therole mightbe seen as beingmorecrucial or SBUsin mature, fragmentedindustries with greater com-

petition n relativelyundifferentiatedommodities hanin new, highly differentiated industries with patentprotectionand relatively little indirectcompetition.

Also relevant to contingency marketingmanage-ment is the study of a particularorganizational orm

as a cultural phenomenon-product/brand manage-ment. A focus on how environmentalchanges mightaffect the relative efficiency of product managementas anexpressionof organizational ulturemightbe thebasis for such an inquiry. This researchtopic is es-

pecially salient for consumer goods firms currentlyfacedwith increasedretailercontrolof thedistribution

channel, accelerated sales promotion activity, and

consequentlydecreasedbrand oyalty.Though surveyresearchmethodstraditionally ave

been used to examinecontingency management ssues

in marketing, combining them with ethnographicmethodsmightbe appropriaten investigatingspecific

topics. For instance, an understanding f the role ofa CEO in implementinga customer/marketingori-

entationin an organizationmight involve a field in-

vestigationwith the extensive note taking, document

collecting, and personal interviews that characterize

the typical anthropologicalstudy. However, to gen-eralize across firms and/or industries t might be ap-

propriatesubsequentlyto develop a survey research

questionnaire o detect common patternsor themes.

We shouldadd thatethnographicmethods arenot sin-

gle-firmrestricted.Gregory's(1983) studyof "native

views" in Silicon Valley firms is an excellent example

of the kind of researchthatcan be done in this area.

Marketing Cognition

Among the metaphoricalviews of organizational ul-

ture,the organizational ognitionperspectivesuggestsseveral interestingresearch directions. In this para-

digm, culture s seen as a metaphor or organizational

knowledge systems with sharedcognitions.

Myers, Massy, and Greyser (1980), in a major

MSI/AMA reporton marketingknowledge develop-ment, reported ittle diffusion of marketingconcepts,models, and theories at the line managerlevel. Few

researchershave takenup this issue for empiricalin-vestigation, but it is a topic for which an organiza-tional cognitionperspectivemightprove helpful. Re-

centworkon thenotionof an "organizational emory"(Walsch and Ungson 1988) suggests several reasons

why scholars in any field includingmarketingmight

investigatethis area. Beyond the obvious need to un-

derstandthe impact of marketingtheory and model

development on practitioners,it is important o un-

derstandthe process by which marketingknowledgeresides in an organizationwheremanagershave great








task mobility. A firm thatrotatesmanagers hroughaseries of positionsand functionsmightwant to ensurethat core marketingknowledge is not lost in the ro-tation(a problemthatis accentuatedwhena key man-

ager leaves the firm). This area is of currentconcernbecause of the restructuringoccurring in recentlymerged or acquired corporations. What constitutes"sharedmarketingcognitions"in such organizations?How are

theyaffected duringmergerand acquisition

activity?Another nterestingresearchareathat could be ex-

aminedfrom an organizationalcognition perspectiveis organizationalconflict involving marketing. One

could explore, for instance, the "thoughtworlds"of

managersas organizationalbehaviorscholarDough-

erty (1987) has done in her studyof marketing/R&Dconflicts n the new productdevelopmentprocess.Such

an inquiry would center on understandinghow dif-

ferences in the world views of differentgroupsor de-

partmentswouldhelp or hinderthe enactmentof mar-

ketingdecisions.Thisapproach anbe appliedusefully

to several of the other subfunctionaldivisions, in-cluding marketingversus sales.

Though not taking a culturalperspective, Desh-

pandeand Zaltman(1984) suggest that differencesin

the perceiveduse of marketresearch nformationcan

be explainedby a "two-communityheory"of differ-

ing backgroundsof marketingresearchersand man-

agers. Their work could be reexaminedfrom a mar-

ketingcognitionperspective.SimilarlyZaltman 1987),

using a theories-in-useapproachwith a repertorygridmethod,has attempted o describetheknowledgesys-tems of retailbuyers. The underlyingtheme in these

studies is to uncoverthe "grammar" r epistemolog-ical basis for marketingdecisions-what it is about

the ways marketingmanagersandothers nterpretheir

world hatexplainswhy theytakecertainactions which

might frequentlybe in conflict with those taken by

others). Zaltman'sapproach s very much in the tra-

dition of cognitive organizationalbehavior scholar

Wacker (1981), who has suggested using the reper-

tory grid for diagnosis and intervention.As in the last example, researchersworking on

marketingcognition issues might find methods such

as the repertorygrid useful in mappingthe cognitive

rules being used by managers. Traditionally,how-ever, the organizationalcognition literaturehas been

groundedn ethnographicnthropologicalmethod.The

objective is to get as much depth as possible in un-

derstandingorganizationalknowledge from the orga-nizationalactors'perspective,therebysacrificinggen-

eralizabilityo someextent.Thoughmarketingcholars

may or may not choose to make the same method-

ological tradeoff, they should be aware of the most

common research methods being used by organiza-tionalbehaviorresearcherswho haveworkedwiththis

paradigm.

Marketing Symbolism

The fourth culturalparadigm, organizational ymbol-ism, is rooted in both symbolic anthropologyand

symbolic organization theory. Marketing scholars

working n this area would searchforpatternsof sym-bolic discoursewhere culture s a metaphor or shared

symbols and meanings. The most common method-

ological approachhas been ethnographic, houghcer-

tain inquiries might be pursuedby survey researchmethods.

A major opic for research n this area s marketingsocialization. Both recruitmentand trainingof new

marketingand sales personnelare culture-relatedac-

tivities that might be interpretedn terms of the par-ticularsymbols attachedto both formal and informal

socialization.PepsiCoInc., forexample, is known for

a corporateculturethat encouragesinternalcompeti-tiveness among marketingmanagersas a simulation

of the competitiveness in the industriesin which it

operates.Coca-Cola,in contrast, s knownfor a much

moreconservative,traditional orporate ulturewhereinternalconsensus is deemed important n order to

presenta unitedfront in the marketplace.These two

packaged goods companies derive a substantialpor-tion of their overall revenue from the same product

categories, but theirprocedures or employee social-

ization would be extremelydifferent.

In some respects, personnelselection is the singlemost crucial human resources decision in manage-ment and yet is almost never studied by marketingscholars.To worktogetheras a team, marketingper-sonnelneed to understand ot only theirown jobs and

their interrelationshipso the jobs of others, but alsothe values, norms, and ideologies of the entire com-

pany and of the departmental ubunit.The organiza-tional symbolism perspectivecan be useful in inter-

preting heculture,especially orwell-establishedirms.

As Schein(1984, p. 10) notes:"Becausecultureserves

the functionof stabilizingthe externaland internalen-

vironmentof anorganization, t mustbe taught o new

members.It wouldnot serve its functionif every gen-erationof new memberscould introducenew percep-

tions, language, thinking patterns,and rules of inter-

action. For culture to serve its function, it must be

perceived ascorrectand

valid,and if it is

perceivedthatway, it automaticallyollows that t mustbe taughtto newcomers."

An organizationalymbolismperspectivemightbe

helpful in understandinghe dilemma of how to so-

cialize newcomers into the currentorganizationalor

marketingdepartment ulturewithoutdiminishingthe

creativity and innovativeness that different perspec-tives frequentlybring. Does a strong programof mar-

keting socializationdampencreativityof expression?

Perhaps his is one of the major ssues to be addressed

in studyingbrandmanagement ystems in well-estab-

12/ JournalfMarketing,anuary989







lished firms. It is an important ssue to practitionersas well, because chief executive officers have com-mented on declining innovativenessand entrepreneu-rial thinking on the part of marketing managers(Webster1981).

A final avenue for research on marketingsym-bolism is in the domain of personalselling. There isa literatureon the importanceof brand symbols toconsumers

Levy 1959).It would be

interestingo look

at the importanceof organizationalsymbols from asales perspective.Most of the selling literature enterson formal termsof a transaction n evaluatingvalue,but organizationalculture and other less tangible as-

pects of a vendor firm are also critical for a potentialbuyer. For example, not only the technical capabili-ties of IBM's Personal System/2 but also the sym-bolic aspectsof the IBM culturearetransmittedo the

buyerat the point of sale. How much of the variancein purchasedecisions can be explained by such ex-

changes of organizationalvalues?

Structural/PsychodynamicPerspectivein Marketing

The fifth culture paradigmis groundedin both the

structuralism f Levi-Strauss(1963) and transforma-

tional organization heory (Turner1983). Here orga-nizationalculture is seen as a metaphorfor the un-

conscious mind and the organization tself is a form

of humanexpression.Perhapsthe most interestingresearchquestion is

how a companydevelops as an expressionof the will

of its founders. Though little use has been made of

historical research in marketing(Savitt 1980), thisquestionwouldbe excellent for applicationof a set of

methods using archivaldata to interprethow an or-

ganizationgrows. Especially pertinenthere would be

thestudyof firmswe thinkof as being"market-driven,"

companies such as Procter & Gamble in consumer

packagedgoods, GeneralElectric in durablegoods,IBM in industrialproducts,and AmericanExpressin

services. Whatis it aboutthe foundersof these com-

panies thatwas translatednto specific organizational

arrangementsonduciveto being market-driven?What

is it thatdrives certaininventorsandentrepreneurso

create organizationsto market their products whileothersare content to have their ideas exploited?

The five organizational ultureparadigmsprovide

many directions for research on topics relevant to

marketingmanagement.Note that the levels of in-

vestigationdiffer among the paradigms.In the com-

parativemarketing managementperspective, culture

is approachedas a backgroundvariableandhence in-

quiry is at the level of the environment.In the con-

tingency marketingmanagementperspective, culture

is seen as an independentvariableand hence inquiryis at the level of the organization. In the three re-

maining paradigms(marketingcognition, marketingsymbolism, andstructural/psychodynamism),ultureis examined at the individual-managerevel.

Summary and Conclusion

Marketing cholarsseekingto develop conceptsof or-

ganizational culture and apply them to marketing

problemsface two challenges. First, they must delveinto the rapidly developing literature on organiza-tional culture andunderstand he variousdefinitional,

conceptual,andmethodologicalssues (outlinedbrieflyhere). For their research to be credible, they must

clarify, and defend, the choices they have made in

addressing hese issues. Their choices will includethe

theoreticalapproachpreferredand the methodological

approachused. Second, they mustdevelop theoretical

structures hat relate carefully defined culturalvari-ables to the marketingphenomenathey are trying to

understand.

The importanceof understandingorganizationalculture issues in a marketingmanagementcontext is

undeniable.For instance,of the priorityresearch op-ics listedin a recentMarketing cienceInstitute1988)

publication,the MSI cites an urgentneed for research

on "developingand maintaininga customerand mar-

ket focus" (p. 7)-implying anunderstanding f both

the role of marketing n an organizationand how a

company can become more customer-oriented.Ad-

ditionally, the MSI reportcalls for more researchon

integratinga customer orientationwith a focus on

qualityas a managementprocess. We considerthese

and relatedissues in our discussion of how the fiveorganizational ultureparadigmsaffect marketingre-

search.The literaturewe review holds tremendousprom-

ise for marketing cholarswho want to begin this ex-

ploration.It is time to move beyond structural xpla-nationsof marketingmanagement,of "whathappensaroundhere," to an understandingof "why things

happenthe way they do." The potential is great for

both building richer theories of marketingmanage-ment and addressingsignificantproblemsof market-

ing practice.

REFERENCES

Allaire, Yvan and Mihaela E. Firsirotu (1984), "Theories of

OrganizationalCulture," Organization Studies, 5 (3), 193-226.

Anthony, Robert N., John Dearden, and Norton N. Bradford

(1984), Management Control Systems, 5th ed. Homewood,IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.

Barnard,Chester(1938), The Functionsof the Executive.








Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Berelson, Bernard and Gary A. Steiner (1964), Human Be-havior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York:

Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.

Bonoma, Thomas V. (1984), "Making Your Marketing Strat-

egy Work," Harvard Business Review, 62 (March-April),69-72.

Cherian, Joseph and Rohit Deshpande (1985), "The Impact of

Organizational Culture on the Adoption of Industrial In-

novations," in AMA Educators' Proceedings, Series 51,

Robert F. Lusch et al., eds. Chicago: American MarketingAssociation, 30-4.

Dandridge, Thomas, Ian I. Mitroff, and William F. Joyce(1980), "Organizational Symbolism: A Topic to Expand

Organizational Analysis," Academy of Management Re-

view, 5, 77-82.

Davidson, William H. (1982), Global Strategic Management.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Davis, Stanley M. (1984), Managing Corporate Culture.

Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.Deal, Terence E. and Allen A. Kennedy (1982), Corporate

Culture. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-

pany.Deshpande, Rohit and A. Parasuraman (1984), "Organiza-

tional Culture and Marketing Effectiveness," in Scientific

Method in Marketing, P. F. Anderson and M. J. Ryan, eds.Chicago: American Marketing Association, 137-40.

and (1986), "Linking Corporate Culture

to StrategicPlanning," Business Horizons, 29 (May-June),28-37.

and GeraldZaltman(1984), "A Comparisonof Fac-

tors Affecting Researcherand ManagerPerceptionsof Mar-

ket Research Use," Journal of Marketing Research, 21

(February), 32-8.

Dougherty, Deborah (1987), "The Problem of New Products

in Old Organizations:The Myth of the Better Mousetrapin

Search of the Beaten Path," unpublished Ph.D. disserta-

tion, Sloan School of Management, Massachussetts Insti-

tute of Technology.

Douglas, Mary,ed.

(1982), Essaysin the

Sociology ofPer-

ception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Drucker,Peter(1954), ThePractice of Management.New York:

Harperand Row Publishers, Inc.

Drumwright, Minette (1987), "What Market Based Behavior

Really Means for a Firm," paper presented at MarketingScience Institute, Cambridge, MA (November).

Engel, James F., David T. Kollat, and Roger D. Blackwell

(1968), ConsumerBehavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, Inc.

Frost, Peter J., LarryF. Moore, Meryl R. Louis, Craig Lund-

berg, and Joanne Martin (1985), Organizational Culture.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Gatignon, Hubert and Erin Anderson (1987), "The Multina-

tional Corporation's Degree of Control Over Foreign Sub-

sidiaries: An Empirical Test of a Transaction Cost Expla-nation," Working Paper No. 87-103, Marketing Science

Institute.

Geertz, Clifford (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures. New

York: Basic Books, Inc.

Goodenough, William H. (1971), Culture, Language and So-

ciety. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-

pany.Gregory, Kathleen L. (1983), "Native-View Paradigms:Mul-

tiple Culturesand Conflicts in Organizations,"Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 28 (September), 359-76.

Hampton, James (1982), "Giving the Grid/Group Dimensions

an Operational Definition," in Essays in the Sociology of

Perception, Mary Douglas, ed. London: Routledge and Ke-

gan Paul, 64-82.

Hirschman, Elizabeth (1986), "Humanistic Inquiry in Mar-

keting Research: Philosophy, Method, and Criteria,"Jour-

nal of Marketing Research, 23 (August), 237-49.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture's Consequences: Interna-

tional Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

(1986), "The Usefulness of the OrganizationalCul-

ture Concept," Journal of Management Studies, 23 (May),

253-8.Hulbert, James M. and Norman E. Toy (1977), "A Strategic

Frameworkfor MarketingControl," Journal of Marketing,41 (April), 12-20.

Jaworski, BernardJ. (1988), "Towarda Theory of MarketingControl: EnvironmentalContext, Control Types, and Con-

sequences," Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 23-39.

Jelinek, Mariann, Linda Smircich, and Paul Hirsch (1983),"Introduction:A Code of Many Colors,," Administrative

Science Quarterly, 28 (September), 331-8.

John, George and John Martin (1984), "Effects of Organiza-tional Structureof Marketing Planning on Credibility and

Utilization of Plan Output," Journal of Marketing Re-

search, 21 (May), 170-80.

Joyce, William F. and John W. Slocum, Jr. (1984), "Collec-

tive Climate: Agreement as a Basis for Defining AggregateClimates in Organizations," Academy of ManagementJournal, 27 (December), 721-42.

Kilmann, Ralph, Mary J. Saxton, and Roy Serpa (1985), "In-

troduction:Five Key Issues in Understandingand ChangingCulture," in Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, R.

Kilmann, M. J. Saxton, R. Serpa and Associates, eds. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1-16.

Kroeber, ArthurL. and Clyde Kluckhohn (1952), "Culture:A

Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions," Papers ofthe Peabody Museum, 47 (la).

Kutner, Mark(1987), "How GTE Developed a MarketingOri-

entation," paper presented at Marketing Science Institute

Marketing Strategies Steering Group Meeting, Cambridge,MA

(April23).

Leavitt, Harold J. (1964), "Applied Organization Change in

Industry:Structural,Technical, and Human Approaches,"in New Perspectives in Organization Research, W. W.

Cooper, H. J. Leavitt, and M. W. Shelly, II, eds. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lebas, Michel and Jane Weigenstein (1986), "ManagementControl:The Role of Rules, Marketsand Culture,"Journal

of Management Studies, 23 (May), 259-72.

Levi-Strauss, Claude (1963), Structural Anthropology. New

York: Basic Books, Inc.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), "The Globalization of Markets,"Harvard Business Review, 61 (May/June), 92-102.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959), "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Busi-

ness Review, 37 (July-August), 117-24.

Litterer, Joseph A. and Stanley Young (1981), "The Devel-opment of Managerial Reflective Skills," paper presentedat Northeast American Instituteof Decision Sciences meet-

ings (April).Mahajan, Vijay, P. "Rajan" Varadarajan, Roger A. Kerin

(1987), "Metamorphosis in Strategic Market Planning, in

ContemporaryViews on MarketingPractice, GaryL. Frazier

and Jagdish N. Sheth, eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

Malinowski, Bernard (1961), Argonauts of the Western Pa-

cific. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Marketing Science Institute (1988), Research Program 1988-

1990. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

14/ JournalfMarketing,anuary989







Mitroff, Ian I. (1982), "Stakeholders of the Mind," paper pre-sented at Academy of Management meetings, New York

City (August).Myers, John G., William F. Massy, and Stephen A. Greyser

(1980), MarketingResearch and Knowledge Development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Ouchi, William G. (1980), "Markets, Bureaucracies, and

Clans,"AdministrativeScience Quarterly,25 (March), 129-41.

(1981), Theory Z. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company.and Alan L. Wilkins (1985), "OrganizationalCul-

ture," Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 457-83.

Parasuraman,A. and Rohit Deshpande (1984), "The CulturalContext of Marketing Management," in AMA Educators'

Proceedings, Series 50, Russell W. Belk et al., eds. Chi-

cago: American Marketing Association, 176-9.

Park, C. Whan and Gerald Zaltman (1987), Marketing Man-

agement. Chicago: Dryden Press.

Parsons, Talcott (1956), "Suggestions for a Sociological Ap-

proach to the Study of Organizations," Administrative Sci-

ence Quarterly, 1 (March), 63-85.

Pascale, RobertT. and Anthony Athos (1981), The Art of Jap-anese Management. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Peters, Thomas and Robert Waterman (1982), In Search ofExcellence. New York: Harper& Row Publishers, Inc.

Pettigrew, Andrew M. (1979), "On Studying OrganizationalCultures," Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (Decem-

ber), 570-81.

Pondy, Louis, Peter J. Frost, Gareth Morgan, and Thomas

Dandridge, eds. (1985), Organizational Symbolism. Green-

wich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

Pugh, Derek S. and David J. Hickson (1976), OrganizationStructure in its Context: The Aston Programme 1. Farn-

borough, Hants: Saxon House/Lexington.

Quelch, John A. and Edward J. Hoff (1986), "CustomizingGlobal Marketing," Harvard Business Review, 64 (May/June), 59-68.

Quinn, James Brian (1980), Strategies for Change-Logical

Incrementalism. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.Radcliffe-Brown, Arthur (1952), Structure and Function in

Primitive Society. London: Oxford University Press.

Reynolds, Paul D. (1986), "OrganizationalCultureas Related

to Industry, Position and Performance: A Preliminary Re-

port," Journal of Management Studies, 23 (May), 333-45.

Ruekert, Robert W. and MurrayP. Naditch (1987), "A Man-

agerially-Oriented Approach to Assessing Marketing Ori-

entation," paper presented at Marketing Science Institute,

Cambridge, MA (November).and Orville C. Walker, Jr. (1987), "Marketing'sIn-

teraction with Other Functional Units: A ConceptualFramework and Empirical Evidence," Journal of Market-

ing, 51 (January), 1-19.

Sakach, Joseph M. (1987), "Keeping a MarketingOrientation

Alive in a Changing Market Place," paper presented atMarketing Science Institute Marketing Strategies Steering

Group Meeting, Cambridge, MA (April).Sathe, Vijay (1983), "Some Action Implications of Corporate

Culture: A Manager's Guide to Action," Organizational

Dynamics, 12 (Autumn), 4-23.

Savitt, Ronald (1980), "Historical Research in Marketing,"Journal of Marketing, 44 (Fall), 52-8.

Schein, Edgar H. (1984), "Coming to a New Awareness of

Organizational Culture," Sloan Management Review, 12

(Winter), 3-16.

Schneider, Benjamin and Joan Rentsch (1987), "ManagingClimates and Cultures:A Futures Perspective," draft copy

(June2) to appear n Futures of Organizations, JeraldHage,ed. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, forthcoming.

Schwartz, Howard and Stanley Davis (1981), "MatchingCor-

porate Cultureand Business Strategy," Organizational Dy-namics, 10 (Summer), 30-48.

Shrivastava, Paul and Ian I. Mitroff (1983), "Frames of Ref-erence Managers Use," in Advances in Strategic Manage-ment, Vol. 1, RobertLamb, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,Inc., 161-80.

Slocum, John W. (1971), "A ComparativeStudy of American

and Mexican Operatives," Academy of Management Jour-nal, 14 (1), 89-97.

Smircich, Linda (1983a), "Concepts of Culture and Organi-zational Analysis," Administrative Science Quarterly, 28

(September), 339-58.

(1983b), "Organizations as Shared Meanings," in

Organizational Symbolism, Louis Pondy et al., eds. Green-

wich CT: JAI Press, Inc., 55-65.

Spekman, Robert E. and Louis W. Ster (1979), "Environ-

mental Uncertainty and Buying Group Structure: An Em-

pirical Investigation," Journal of Marketing, 43 (Spring),54-64.

Thompson, James D. (1967), Organizations in Action. New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Turner, Stephen P. (1983), "Studying Organization Through

Levi-Strauss' Structuralism," in Beyond Method: SocialResearch Strategies, GarethMorgan, ed. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Wacker, Gerald (1981), "Toward a Cognitive Methodology of

Organizational Assessment," Journal of Applied Behav-

ioral Science, 17 (1), 114-29.

Walker, Orville C., Jr. and Robert W. Ruekert (1987), "Mar-

keting's Role in the Implementationof Business Strategies:A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework,"Journal of

Marketing, 51 (July), 15-33.

Walsch, James P. and Gerardo Ungson (1988), "Organiza-tional Memory," working paper, Amos Tuck School of

Business, DartmouthCollege.Webster, FrederickE., Jr. (1981), "Top Management's Con-

cerns About Marketing: Issues for the 1980s," Journal ofMarketing, 45 (Summer), 9-16.

(1988), "Rediscovering the Marketing Concept,"Business Horizons, 31 (May-June), 29-39.

Weick, Karl E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing,2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Com-

pany.(1985), "The Significance of CorporateCulture," in

OrganizationalCulture,P. J. Frostet al., eds. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 381-9.

Weitz, Barton, HarishSujan, and Mita Sujan (1986), "Knowl-

edge, Motivation, and Adaptive Behavior: A Framework

for Improving Selling Effectiveness," Journal of Market-

ing, 50 (October), 174-91.

Wheelwright, Steven C. (1984), "Strategy, Management, and

Strategic Planning Approaches," Interfaces, 14 (January/February), 19-33.

Wilkins, Alan and William G. Ouchi (1983), "Efficient Cul-

tures: Exploring the Relationship Between Cultureand Or-

ganizational Performance," Administrative Science Quar-

terly, 28 (September), 468-81.

Zaltman, Gerald (1965), Marketing: Contributionsfrom the

Behavioral Sciences. New York: Harcourt,Brace & World,Inc.

(1987), "Constructing Theories-In-Use," working

paper, Katz Graduate School of Business, University of

Pittsburgh.Reprint No. JM531101


organizational culture and marketing

Documents