Skip to main content

A Framework for the Structural Design of the Marketing Unit: A Contingency Theory Approach

  • Conference paper
Proceedings of the 1985 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference

Abstract

The implementation of marketing strategies in industrial organizations is influenced by the extent to which their administrative structures are appropriately designed to deal with the environments in which they are operating. Although some key aspects of the marketing function important to successful performance have been, identified in previous research and some partial models proposed, there is a need to integrate such findings from a comprehensive organizational perspective. The authors present an integrative conceptual model which elaborates upon hypothesized relationsnips between the structure of an organization’s marketing unit, the conditions of its external markets and environments, and the performance of the marketing unit.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aaker, D. A. 1934. Strategic Market Management. Toronto: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. R. and Paine, F. T. 1973. “PIMS: A Re–examination. ” Academy of Management Review, (July), 3: 602–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. R. and Zeithaml, C. P. 1984. “Stage of Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Performance.” Academy of Management Journal. 27, 1: 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bart, C. 1984. “Product Management: After 56 Years the Questions are Still Unanswered.” Proceedings of Administrative Sciences Association of Canada’s Conference, Marketing Division, 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma, T. V. 1984. “Making Your Marketing Strategy Work. : Harvard Business Review. (March–April), 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. Jr. 1962. Strategy and Structure: Chapters in tne History of American Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. 1977. “Organizational Design and Performance: Contingency Theory and Beyond.” Organization and Administrative Science. Special Issue on Organizational Design, 163–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J. 1972. “Organization Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 17: 163–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corey, E. R. and Star, S. H. 1971. Organization Strategy: A Marketing Approach. Boston: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dastmalcnian, A. 1934. “Environmental Dependencies and Company Structures in Britain.: Organization Studies. 5, 3: 227–41 (in press).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., and Beard, D. W. 1984. “Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 29: 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraitn, J. 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinyer, P. H. and Yasai-ArdeKani, M. 1980. “Dimensions of Organizational Structure: A Critical Replication.” Academy of Management Journal. 23: 405–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HambricK, D. C., MacMillan, I. and D. Day. 1982. “Strategic Attributes and Performance in the BCG Matrix - A PIMS-Based Analysis of Industrial Product Businesses.” Academy of Management Journal. 25: 510–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., and Palia, K. A. 1982. “Industrial Firms’ Grand Strategy and Functional Importance: Moderating Effects of Tecnnology and Uncertainty.” Academy of Management Journal. 25, 2: 265–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsen, J. W. 1957. Organization and Environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, T. 1980. “Marketing Success Through Differentiation - of Anything.” Harvard Business Review. (Jan.–Feb.), 58: 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, R., Todd, D., and Wheeler, J. 1930. “Structural Implications of Company-Customer Interface.” Journal of Management Studies, 17: 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennings, J. M. 1975. “The Relevance of the Structural-Contingency Model for Organizational Effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 20: 393–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pessemier, E. A. 1982. Product Management: Strategy and Organization. 2nd edition. Toronto: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and G. R. Salancik. 1978. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource-Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, D. S. and D. J. Hickson. 1975. Organization Structure in its Context. Farnborough: Saxon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, R. 1974. Strategy. Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed. Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business Scnool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. 1976. “Task: and Organization Structure in Marketing.” In E. J. Miller (ed.) Task and Organization. London, England: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snapiro, B. P. 1974. “Manage tne Customer Not Just the Sales Force.” Harvard Business Review, Sept.–Oct., 286–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shortell, S. M. 1977. “The Role of Environment in a Configurational Ineory of Organizations.” Human Relations, 80: 275–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekman, R. E. and K. Gronnaug. 1933. “Insights on Implementation: A Conceptual Framework for Better Understanding the Strategic Market Planning Process.” AMA Educators’ Proceedings, Chicago: 311–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L. W. and A. I. El-Ansary. 1932. Marketing Cnannels, 2nd Ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, J. M. and Nourse, R. E. 1972. “Profitability and Market Structure: An Analysis of Major Manufacturers of Non-Durable Products.” Technical Report. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitz, B. and Anderson, E. 1931. “Organizing the Marketing Function.” In Review of Marketing. B. M. Enis and K. J. Reerings (eds.). Chicago: American Marketing Association, 134–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelar, J., Mansfield, R., and Todd, D. 1930. “Structural Implications of Dependence upon Customers and Owners: Similarities and Differences.” Organization Studies, 1: 327–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Academy of Marketing Science

About this paper

Cite this paper

Boag, D.A., Dastmalcnian, A. (2015). A Framework for the Structural Design of the Marketing Unit: A Contingency Theory Approach. In: Malhotra, N. (eds) Proceedings of the 1985 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16943-9_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics