Skip to main content

Decomposing the effects of organizational memory on marketing implementation

Marketing Letters volume 21, pages 135–147 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

There is limited evidence to explain the effect of organizational memory on marketing implementation. This paper addresses this gap by identifying multiple components of organizational memory and examining how each affects marketing implementation. Organizational memory is a collective recollection of the past that is embedded within firm culture, procedures, and expertise. The findings demonstrate potential tradeoffs to linking versus locking into the firm’s past, particularly in turbulent environments. By decomposing organizational memory’s effects, this paper explains how organizational memory can both enable and constrain marketing implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Fig. 1

References

  • Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(1), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biyalogorsky, E., Boulding, W., & Staelin, R. (2006). Stuck in the past: Why managers persist with new product failures. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 108–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma, T. V. (1985). The marketing edge: Making strategies work. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma, T. V., & Crittenden, V. L. (1988). Managing marketing implementation. Sloan Management Review, 29(2), 7–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Celly, K. S., & Frazier, G. L. (1996). Outcome-based and behavior-based coordination efforts in channel relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), 200–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cespedes, F. V. (1991). Organizing and implementing the marketing effort: Text and cases. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A. (1991). Basic marketing research. Fort Worth: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobni, C. B., & Luffman, G. (2003). Determining the scope and impact of market orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 577–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 91–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis, 6/e. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanvanich, S., Sivakumar, K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2006). The relationship of learning and memory with organizational performance: The moderating role of turbulence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 600–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Krohmer, H., & Workman, J. P. (2004). A strategy implementation perspective of market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1331–1340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayachandran, S., Hewett, K., & Kaufman, P. (2004). Customer response capability in a sense-and-respond era: The role of customer knowledge process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. American Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, G. S., Simpson, J. T., & Souder, W. E. (1997). Effects of organizational learning and information-processing behaviors on new product success. Marketing Letters, 8(1), 33–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mankins, M. C., & Steele, R. (2006). Stop making plans; start making decisions. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 76–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, N. A., Zou, S., Vorhies, D. W., & Katsikeas, C. S. (2003). Experiential and informational knowledge, architectural marketing capabilities, and the adaptive performance of export ventures: A cross-national study. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 287–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45(2), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & 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 

  • Rapert, M. I., Velliquette, A., & Garretson, J. A. (2002). The strategic implementation process: Evoking strategic consensus through communication. Journal of Business Research, 55(4), 301–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sashittal, H. C., & Jassawalla, A. R. (2001). Marketing implementation in smaller organizations: Definition, framework, and propositional inventory. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 50–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (1984). Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula, J. M. (1994). Marketing information processing and organizational learning. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 35–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotegraaf, R. J., & Dickson, P. R. (2004). The paradox of a marketing planning capability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(4), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2005). Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (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 

  • Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, J. C., Conant, J. S., & Echambadi, R. (2003). Marketing strategy development styles, implementation capability, and firm performance: Investigating the curvilinear impact of multiple strategy-making styles. Marketing Letters, 14(2), 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orfalea College of Business, California Polytechnic State University, 1 Grand Avenue, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93407, USA

    Stern Neill

Authors
  1. Stern Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stern Neill.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neill, S. Decomposing the effects of organizational memory on marketing implementation. Mark Lett 21, 135–147 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9091-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9091-4

Keywords

  • Marketing implementation
  • Organizational memory
  • Firm performance