The Relationship between Growth Strategy and Market Performance in Technology-Based Manufacturing Companies

  • David A. Boag
  • Ali Dastmalchian
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


This paper examines the relationships between product-market policy options, market performances and the growth strategies adopted by forty-two technology-based manufacturing firms. The results show that product-market policy options are significantly different for diversified firms compared to firms which pursue product or market-based strategies. Additional analysis indicates that the market performances of diversified firms are weaker than that of other firms. Few differences in performance were noted among firms pursuing product development, market development, or market penetration strategies, i.e. the marketing managers’ perceptions and objective evaluations of market performances are similar for firms pursuing these strategies.


Market Performance Growth Strategy Market Penetration Marketing Manager Diversify Firm 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaker, D.A., 1984. Strategic Marketing Management. (New York: John Wiley & Sons).Google Scholar
  2. Boag, D.A., 1986. “Design of Marketing Systems in Technology Intensive Manufacturing Companies" In Callahan and Haines, Jr. (eds.) High Technology Marketing. (Ottawa: Center For High Technology Management).Google Scholar
  3. Child, J. and A. Kieser, 1981. “Development of Organizations Over Time," 28–64, In Nystrom and Starbuck (eds.) Handbook of Organizational Design. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  4. de Bretani, V. and C. Droge, 1985. The Company, Product and Market Dimensions of Situation-Specific New Product Screening Scenar ios”, Proceedings, Administrative Science Association of Canada, 52–61.Google Scholar
  5. Hambrick, D.C., I.C. MacMillan, and R.R. Barbosa, 1983. “Business Unit Strategy and Changes in the Product R&D Budget," Management Science. 29 (7): 757–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hofer, C.W., 1977. “Conceptual Constructs for Formulating Corporate and Business Strategies," (Boston: Intercollegiate Case Clearing House, #9-378–754).Google Scholar
  7. Hofer, C.W. and D.Schendel, 1978. Strategy Formulat ion : Analytical Concepts. (New York: West Publishing Company).Google Scholar
  8. Kotier, P., 1976. Marketing Management. 1976 (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.)Google Scholar
  9. Robinson, R.F.,Jr., J.A. Pearce II, G.S. Vozikis, and T.S. Mescon, 1984. “The Relationship Between Stage of Development and Small Firm Planning and Performance" Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 22 (2): 45–52.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Boag
    • 1
  • Ali Dastmalchian
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanAkronUSA

Personalised recommendations