Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structural marketing: using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives

  • Conceptual/Theoretical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academics and business practitioners increasingly recognize the importance of organizational structure in marketing. Yet research examining the effects of different organizational structure design elements on marketing outcomes remains fragmented and scarce. Accordingly, this article seeks to synthesize and extend understanding of how firms use their organizational structural elements to achieve marketing objectives, and to offer a new perspective of structural marketing. In support of this research goal, a cross-disciplinary review of organizational structure, its types, and its characteristics, in combination with theories relevant to the field of marketing, informs an assessment of empirical findings from marketing literature. This synthesis introduces the concept of structural marketing; the article offers both theoretical tenets and testable propositions in support of an initial framework for using organizational structure design elements as strategic marketing variables. Illustrative business cases reinforce these tenets, conceptual arguments, and managerial insights.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A matrix structure is distinctive from a hybrid structure. Hybrid structures feature a combination of any structural forms whereas a matrix structure combines functional and multidivisional structures.

  2. We are thankful to the review team for its suggestion to include modular organizational structure.

References

  • 3M Co. (2013). 3M company information. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/3M-Company/Information/.

  • Aaker, D. A. (2008). Spanning silos: The new CMO imperative. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 56–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achrol, R. S., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing in the network economy. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 146–163.

  • Ahuja, M.K., & Carley, K.M. (1998). Network structure in virtual organizations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3 (4).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2007). Performance implications of the direct and moderating effects of centralization and formalization on customer orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(8), 1022–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, D., Dahlstrom, R., & Skinner, S. J. (1997). An exploratory investigation of organizational antecedents to new product success. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, D. W. (1991). Interdepartmental conflict in organizational buying: the impact of the organizational context. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(2), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G. (1995). New product strategy, structure, process, and performance in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(3), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

  • Barney, J.B., & Arikan, A.M. (2001). The resource-based view: origins and implications. The Blackwell handbook of strategic management, 124–188.

  • Berry, L. L. (2004). The collaborative organization: leadership lessons from Mayo Clinic. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 228–242.

  • Bunderson, J. S., & Boumgarden, P. (2009). Structure and learning in self-managed teams: why “bureaucratic” teams can be better learners. Organization Science, 21(3), 609–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Paul, N. J., Salminen, R. T., Puumalainen, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2001). Key antecedents to “export” market-oriented behaviors: a cross-national empirical examination. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18(3), 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (1998). Organizing for radical product innovation: the overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(4), 474–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & McGrath, R. G. (2001). Organizations unfettered: organizational form in an information-intensive economy. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1135–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cisco (1996–2010). Annual reports for years 1996–2010. Retrieved January 4, 2014 from www.investor.cisco.com/sec.cfm.

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capgemini Consulting (2012), Innovation leadership study. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/innovation-leadership-study.

  • Consumer Hospital Assessment (2012). Retrieved January 4, 2014 from http://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic/quality/quality-measures/consumer-hospital-assessment.

  • Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: The role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1990). Market driven strategy: Processes for creating value. New York: The Free Press and Collier Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (1999). The market driven organization: Understanding, attracting, and keeping valuable customers. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2006). Aligning the organization with the market. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2011). Closing the marketing capabilities gap. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luca, L. M., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2007). Market knowledge dimensions and cross-functional collaboration: examining the different routes to product innovation performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(1), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, R.-L. (1993). The structural consequences of downsizing. Organization Science, 4(1), 30–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, M. K., Jason, D. S., & Stark, E. M. (2000). Performance and satisfaction in conflicted interdependent groups: when and how does self-esteem make a difference? The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 772–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, G. (2006). Online extra: The secret of BMW’s success. BusinessWeek. Retrieved January 4, 2014 from http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-10-15/online-extra-the-secret-of-bmws-success.

  • Edwards, C. (2005). Shaking up Intel’s insides. BusinessWeek. Retrieved April 26, 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_05/b3918074_mz011.htm.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Brown, S. L. (1999). Patching restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review, 77(3), 72–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, C. R., & Fredendall, L. D. (2002). The effect of teams on firm profitability and customer satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forbes (2013). The world’s most valuable brands. Retrieved January 6, 2014 from www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list.

  • Froehle, C. M., Roth, A. V., Chase, R. B., & Voss, C. A. (2000). Antecedents of new service development effectiveness: an exploratory examination of strategic operations choices. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. R., Downey, D., & Kates, A. (2002). Designing dynamic organizations: A hands-on guide for leaders at all levels. New York: AMACOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, H., Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Witell, L. (2010). Match or mismatch: strategy-structure configurations in the service business of manufacturing companies. Journal of Service Research, 13(2), 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germain, R., Dröge, C., & Daugherty, P. J. (1994). The effect of just-in-time selling on organizational structure: an empirical investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(4), 471–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996a). Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996b). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(10), 109–122.

  • Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Integrating R&D and marketing: a review and analysis of the literature. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(3), 191–215.

  • Groom, N. (2013). BMW says has orders for nearly 10,000 of its electric i3 cars. Reuters. Retrieved January 3, 2014 from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/20/us-autoshow-bmw-electric-idUSBRE9AJ17920131120.

  • Gulati, R. (2007). Silo busting. Harvard Business Review, 85(5), 98–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habib, M. M., & Victor, B. (1991). Strategy, structure, and performance of U.S. Manufacturing and service mncs: a comparative analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 12(8), 589–606.

  • Hartline, M. D., Maxham, I., James, G., & Mckee, D. O. (2000). Corridors of influence in the dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, P. S., Zhang, Z.-X., & Han, Y. (2012). Team empowerment and the organizational context: decentralization and the contrasting effects of formalization. Journal of Management, 38(2), 475–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Espallardo, M., & Arcas-Lario, N. (2003). The effects of authoritative mechanisms of coordination on market orientation in asymmetrical channel partnerships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in marketing organization: the movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 459–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing organization and insights from 31 organization theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(4), 509–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Im, S., & Nakata, C. (2008). Crafting an environment to foster integration in new product teams. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intel Corporation (2005, 2007, 2009). Annual reports for years 2005, 2007, and 2009. Retrieved December 10, 2013 from http://www.intc.com/annuals.cfm.

  • Jaworski, B. J. (1988). Toward a theory of marketing control: environmental context, control types, and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Joshi, A. W., & Sharma, S. (2004). Customer knowledge development: antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabadayi, S., Eyuboglu, N., & Thomas, G. P. (2007). The performance implications of designing multiple channels to fit with strategy and environment. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 195–211.

  • Karim, S. (2006). Modularity in organizational structure: the reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal, 27(9), 799–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, D. (2006). Intel finally fights back. CNN Money. Retrieved January 6, 2014 from http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/27/technology/fastforward_fortune0427intel/.

  • Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

  • Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., & Reinartz, W. (2008). Performance implications of adopting a customer-focused sales campaign. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 50–68.

  • Lee, J.-Y., Sridhar, S., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Effect of customer-centric structure on long-term financial performance. Marketing Science. doi:10.1287/mksc.2014.0878 (forthcoming).

  • Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wierenga, B. (2002). The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(4), 305–317.

  • Lievens, A., & Moenaert, R. K. (2000). New service teams as information-processing systems: reducing innovative uncertainty. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 46–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. K. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. (2000). Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions: the differential effects of integrating mechanisms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marketing Science Institute. (2010). 2010–2012 research priorities: A guide to MSI research programs and procedures. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

  • Marketing Science Institute. (2012). 2012–2014 research priorities: A guide to MSI research programs and procedures. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

  • Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo Clinic (2012). Annual report 2012. Retrieved January 3, 2014 from www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic/annual-report

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: the role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 820–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: the emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 51–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A.K. (1997). Product quality: Impact of interdepartmental interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 187–200

  • Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell, R. (1996). The quality and effectiveness of marketing strategy: effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict in intraorganizational relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(4), 299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., Adidam, P. T., & Edison, S. W. (1999). Antecedents and consequences of marketing strategy making: a model and a test. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., Friesen, P. H., & Mintzberg, H. (1984). Organizations: A quantum view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.

  • Naik, P. A., Raman, K., & Winer, R. S. (2005). Planning marketing-mix strategies in the presence of interaction effects. Marketing Science, 24(1), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neff, J. (2008). Reorganization doesn’t do it for marketers. Advertising Age. Retrieved March 4, 2013 from http://adage.com/article/news/reorganization-marketers/125503/.

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market learning and radical innovation: a cross case comparison of eight radical innovation projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, C. A. I., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C., Jr., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 48–62.

    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.

  • Ordanini, A., & Parasuraman, A. (2010). Service innovation viewed through a service-dominant logic lens: a conceptual framework and empirical analysis. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 3–23.

  • Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2013). Relationship velocity: toward a theory of relationship dynamics. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelham, A. M., & Wilson, D. T. (1996). A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2010). Crossroads—organizing for fluidity? dilemmas of new organizational forms. Organization Science, 21(6), 1251–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, R. (2000a). New product quality and product development teams. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 1–14.

  • Sethi, R. (2000b). Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: its antecedents and effect on new product performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(3), 330–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, D., Rust, R. T., Parasuraman, A., Staelin, R., & Day, G. S. (2006). The path to customer centricity. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 113–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: the mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 292–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stathakopoulos, V. (1998). Enhancing the performance of marketing managers aligning strategy, structure and evaluation systems. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 536–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A., & Fryer, B. (2008). Cisco sees the future. Harvard Business School Publushing, 86, 72–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • StreetInsider (2014). Analyst ratigs for Tumi Holdings. Retrived from http://www.streetinsider.com/rating_history.php?q=TUMI

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Troy, L. C., Szymanski, D. M., & Varadarajan, P. R. (2001). Generating new product ideas: an initial investigation of the role of market information and organizational characteristics. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1), 89–101.

  • Troy, L. C., Hirunyawipada, T., & Paswan, A. K. (2008). Cross-functional integration and new product success: an empirical investigation of the findings. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 132–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tumi (2012). Annual report 2012. Retrieved January 5, 2014 from http://www.tumi.com/category/index.jsp?categoryId=12776049.

  • Van den Bosch, F. A. J., Volberda, H. W., & de Boer, M. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., & Sonnack, M. (1999). Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 47–57.

  • 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 

  • Walton, E. J. (2005). The persistence of bureaucracy: a meta-analysis of weber’s model of bureaucratic control. Organization Studies, 26(4), 569–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Simon, P., Fenton, E., & Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization Science, 10(5), 583–600.

  • Workman, J. P., Jr., Homburg, C., & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing organization: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, S., Cavusgil, S. T., & White, J. C. (2006). The impact of strategic fit among strategy, structure, and processes on multinational corporation performance: a multimethod assessment. Journal of International Marketing, 14(2), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Li, J. J., Zhou, N., & Su, C. (2008). Market orientation, job satisfaction, product quality, and firm performance: evidence from China. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 985–1000.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, 621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA

    Ju-Yeon Lee

  2. Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, 632 Bogue Street, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Irina V. Kozlenkova

  3. Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, 418 Paccar Hall, Box 353226, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA

    Robert W. Palmatier

Authors
  1. Ju-Yeon Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Irina V. Kozlenkova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert W. Palmatier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ju-Yeon Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, JY., Kozlenkova, I.V. & Palmatier, R.W. Structural marketing: using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 73–99 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0402-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0402-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation