Keywords

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.

To advance research, the theoretical integration of marketing activities, customer value-creating processes, networks, and stakeholders in the boundary-spanning marketing organization can be informed by a number of organization theories (cf. Ketchen and Hult 2007a, b, 2011; Wind 2009). Thirty-one theories appear particularly applicable to inform work on the marketing organization as conceptualized within the confines of MOR theory (a listing of the 31 organization theories can be found in Table 1.2). These 31 theories have emerged as potentially insightful for studying marketing organizations (cf. Workman et al. 1998) and strategic marketing phenomena (cf. Varadarajan 2010). At the outset, it is important to realize that these 31 organization theories have different arguments, units of analysis, assumptions, antecedents, and/or consequences. It is also important to note that the 31 theories can be used within organizational settings, although an argument can be made that some of them are not necessarily “organization theories” by their origin. Importantly, while a complete integration of any pair of theories is difficult, an integration of 31 theories is impossible. Instead, what I intend to accomplish is to draw out the most applicable aspects of each of the 31 organization theories within the context of the boundary-spanning marketing organization. The idea is that each theory has a unique ability to explain and predict certain aspects of the boundary-spanning marketing organization which cannot be as effectively or efficiently done by another theory.

I selected these 31 theories based on their current use in organization-focused research coupled with their significant application potential for the study of marketing organizations. Obviously other organization and non-organization theories are applicable to ­marketing organizations. Their omission in this SpringerBrief is by no means an indication that they are not or could not be valuable in explaining and predicting certain cultural, structural, and/or behavioral aspects of marketing organizations. Equally important, while 31 organization theories are used in the SpringerBrief, each is not necessarily equally valid, insightful, and accepted in the marketing and organization literatures and, as such, some theories are used more heavily in the development than others.

For the following discussion, the theories are grouped based on similarity and applicability for the boundary-spanning marketing organization (i.e., strategic ­marketing resources, marketing leadership and decision-making, network alliances and collaborations, and domestic and global marketplaces). Table 3.1 summarizes in which cluster each organization theory belongs as it pertains to this research. The focus of the clustered review of the organization theories is on the integration of existing organization theory thoughts as opposed to the interpretation of those thoughts. The intended value of such an approach is to provide a “toolkit” to marketing researchers working in the areas covered in MOR theory (cf. Connelly et al. 2010; Ketchen and Hult 2007a, b, 2011).

Table 3.1 A clustered listing of the 31 organization theories
Full size table

In Table 3.2, each theory is summarized in terms of its original and marketing scopes as well as the main marketing insights that can be derived from its use within MOR theory. This summary table is meant to serve as a quick overview of each theory, with direct reference to their original sources and with the basic aspects of each theory explained. In essence, Table 3.2 is the Cliff Notes version of the 31 organization theories but with thoughtful marketing scopes and marketing insights that can set the tone for future research on the boundary-spanning marketing organization, marketing strategy, and perhaps the field of marketing in general.

Table 3.2 The 31 organization theories: original scope, marketing scope, and marketing insights
Full size table

Strategic Marketing Resources

Seven of the organization theories in Table 3.2 have an intellectual cluster centered on “strategic marketing resources” as they apply to a boundary-spanning marketing organization (i.e., adjustment-cost theory of the firm, competence-based theory, knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm, resource-advantage theory, resource-based view of the firm (RBV), service-dominant logic, and theory of the growth of the firm). As such, developing, nurturing, and maintaining an advantage in the marketplace is directly tied to strategic (marketing) resources for a marketing organization based on the central elements of the seven “resource theories.” Albeit applied somewhat differently in each theory, resources permeate the fabric of each and serve as a focal point for integration and knowledge insights for MOR theory.

  • Theory of the growth of the firm: Originally focusing on industrial firms, this theory defines the economic function as a collection of resources bound together in an administrative framework. Importantly, it is never the resources that the boundary-spanning marketing organization possesses that serve as inputs in the production process but only the services that the organization’s resources can render.

  • RBV: Marketing activities tie resources with advantage and performance in the boundary-spanning marketing organization. The RBV envisions the organization as a collection of strategic resources which are heterogeneously distributed across firms.

  • Resource-advantage theory: A disequilibrium-seeking process can increase resources, even if certain resources are used up. The basis for a sustainable competitive advantage resides in the boundary-spanning marketing organization’s resources and in how it structures, bundles, and leverages those resources.

  • Competence-based theory: This theory addresses what the firm can do particularly well in relation to its competition. The focus is on capabilities that make the whole boundary-spanning marketing organization more productive than the sum of its internal and external units.

  • KBV of the firm: With a focus on “strategic knowledge,” the firm is portrayed as an institution for integrating knowledge. The implication is that marketing professionals (at all levels of hierarchy) own the bulk of the boundary-spanning marketing organization’s resources.

  • Adjustment-cost theory of the firm: This theory has a knowledge focus on adjusting a relationship by making changes. A horizontal expansion should govern the boundary-spanning marketing organization’s transfer of any excess strategic marketing resource capacity if it entails frequent and diverse marketing adaptations. If the industry places a premium on flexibility, expand the organization’s vertical scope by bringing in parts of the supply chain(s).

  • Service-dominant (SD) logic: This theory’s focus is on “specialized competences (operant resources—knowledge skills)” (Vargo and Lusch 2008, p. 2). The service aspect of SD logic is the provision of the information to or for a consumer who desires it; this could be both an internal and/or an external customer in the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

The classical point of origination for resource-based theories is the theory of the growth of the firm. “The economic function of such a [growth] firm was assumed simply to be that of acquiring and organizing human and other resources in order profitably to supply goods and services to the market … it was defined, therefore, as a collection of resources bound together in an administrative framework, the boundaries of which are determined by the area of administrative coordination and authoritative communication” (Penrose 1959/1995, p. xi). In terms of marketing organizations, the theory of the growth of the firm, rooted mainly in industrial firms, has the most logical connection to marketing channels and supply chains. This theory serves as a rational foundation for the resource-based view, and it addresses acquisition of marketing resources (human and others) that can be used by a firm to establish a position in the marketplace via product and/or service offerings. In addition, interfunctional coordination (administrative coordination) and formal reporting lines among marketing personnel (authoritative communication) are often used when defining aspects of resource-centered marketing organizations and their formation of marketing strategy.

Building on the theory of the growth of the firm, the RBV (Wernerfelt 1984) envisions the firm as a collection of strategic resources which are heterogeneously distributed across firms (Barney 1991) to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. A key premise of the resource-based view is its direct connection to the performance of the firm via strategic action and competitive advantage (Ketchen et al. 2007). As such, the resource-based view envisions the marketing organization as a bundle of strategic marketing resources that are heterogeneously distributed across organizations and are rooted in an equilibrium-seeking process embedded in a marketplace of perfect competition. A broader but close ally to the resource-based view within the field of marketing is resource-advantage (R-A) theory. R-A theory suggests that the basis for a sustainable competitive advantage resides in the marketing organization’s resources and how it structures, bundles, and leverages those marketing resources (Hunt and Morgan 1995). A key difference between the RBV and R-A theory is that R-A theory is rooted in a disequilibrium-seeking process (i.e., the marketing organization is a bundle of marketing resources which is rooted in a disequilibrium-seeking process embedded in a marketplace of less than perfect competition).

One of the theories underlying R-A theory is competence-based theory. In Hunt’s view (2000, p. 80), competence-based theory is an “internal factors theory of business strategy” with classical origination in Selznick’s (1957) work on “distinctive competence.” Competence-based theory was used by Andrews (1971) to refer to what the firm could do particularly well in relation to its competition. It lends itself uniquely to the study of the marketing organization in that it focuses solely on the distinctive competences that make the organization thrive in a competitive environment. Another narrowly defined resource theory is the KBV of the firm. The KBV is mainly a spinoff from the RBV. While competence-based theory focuses on what the firm can do particularly well, the KBV suggests that such competencies and market leadership stem solely from “strategic knowledge”; “the firm is conceptualized as an institution for integrating knowledge” (Grant 1996, p. 109) based on certain learning endeavors (e.g., Bell et al. 2010, 2000). This knowledge focus is a prerequisite for the adjustment-cost theory of the firm. Within the adjustment-cost theory of the firm (Wernerfelt 1997), an organization continually “examines ongoing trading relationships and asks by which process the parties should adjust the relationship by accommodating changes” (Wernerfelt 2005, p. 17).

The most recent addition to these resource theories—service-dominant logic (Vargo and Lusch 2004)—both builds on previous resource theories and uniquely departs from them. In fact, service-dominant logic is not inherently resource focused per se. Rather, service-dominant logic “implies that the goal is to customize offerings, to recognize that the consumer is always a coproducer, and to strive to maximize consumer involvement in the customization to better fit his or her needs” (Vargo and Lusch 2004, p. 12). What ties S-D logic to resource theories is its discussion of specialized competences. Specifically, within service-dominant logic, “service is defined as the application of specialized competences (operant resources—knowledge skills), through deeds, processes, and performances for the benefit of another entity or the entity itself” (Vargo and Lusch 2008, p. 2). Based on the theories of strategic marketing resources, the marketing organization is a bundle of marketing resources, created by the strategically unique application of specialized marketing competences, which is rooted in a disequilibrium-seeking process embedded in a marketplace of less than perfect competition.

Marketing Leadership and Decision-Making

Eight of the organization theories in Table 3.2 have an intellectual cluster centered on “leadership and decision making” as they apply to a boundary-spanning marketing organization (i.e., agency theory, bounded rationality theory, game theory, prospect theory, real options theory, strategic choice theory, theory of competitive rationality, and upper echelons theory).

  • Upper echelons theory: Characteristics of top managers are shaped by past practices and managerial backgrounds, and such practices/backgrounds affect organizational outcomes and choices, including strategic choices and performance levels in the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Strategic choice theory: This theory involves strategic decisions by marketing managers; the central issue being strategic renewal and repositioning and the foundational assumption being that boundary-spanning marketing organizations can enact and actively shape their environment.

  • Bounded rationality: This theory addresses ingrained operating procedures and recognizes that it is not possible to understand and analyze all information which is potentially relevant in making firm choices. Managers are limited by the information they have and/or can obtain, emphasizing cognitive limitations of their minds and frame of reference and the time constraint in which they have to make decisions in the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Prospect theory: This theory addresses making choices involving risk; specifically, it describes how organizations (or people) make choices between alternatives that involve degrees of risk. The issue of “framing” within the confines of prospect theory is generally considered to be inconsistent with economic rationality but is important for the subjective rationale in boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Real options theory: This theory focuses on risk uncertainty and revolves around creating and then exercising or not exercising certain options. Marketing managers should look beyond the net present value of a marketing investment and consider the value of the options offered by such an investment for the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Game theory: In the “game” of making strategic choices, the focus in such scenarios has been on an individual’s success in making strategic choices relative to other players. Subjective-probability judgments or risk assessment by decision makers can be employed to reduce uncertainty as it pertains to the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Agency theory: In this theory, marketing managers lead instead of owners or top management; the theory explains firm governance by delineating firm owners as principals that hire agents (managers) to carry out the business of operating the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Theory of competitive rationality: Uniquely qualified leaders can be exploited, meaning that a firm’s success is tied to the imperfect procedural rationality of its managers, but responsiveness can make up for the boundary-spanning marketing organization’s imperfect knowledge and its bounded rationality.

Marketing leaders in particular are central to the effective and efficient operations of the marketing organization. Marketing outcomes of the organization are directly tied to the strategic decision-making choices made by top-level marketing leaders, as rooted in strategic choice theory (Child 1972) and upper echelons theory (Hambrick and Mason 1984). The characteristics of these marketing managers along with their managerial backgrounds set the tone for what type of marketing decisions will be made (Hambrick 2005), depending on the ingrained operating procedures that the marketing organization has adopted that are boundedly rational (Simon 1945, 1957). In essence, the marketing organization develops techniques, habits, and operating procedures to cope with the often overwhelming amount of information available to marketing leaders—both internal and external. The premise is that marketing leaders have an opportunity to shape both marketing strategy and the external environment in which the firm operates (Child 1972).

Prospect theory suggests that in making strategic choices, marketing leaders evaluate alternatives that involve degrees of risk (Kahneman and Tversky 1979), a premise also addressed by real options theory in the form of risk uncertainty (Myers 1977). An astute marketing leader evaluates potential gains and losses relative to the possibility of exercising available options for implementation. Clearly some marketing leaders are better at the “game” of making strategic choices relative to other organizations in the marketplace (Neumann and Morgenstern 1944). According to agency theory, such decisions also include employing marketing managers to lead the organization’s marketing efforts instead of the owners or even top-level management being responsible for marketing leadership (Jensen and Meckling 1976). In these cases, the marketing organization opts to hire marketing specialists who are better suited for and capable of carrying out the marketing activities of the organization. In effect, according to the theory of competitive rationality, the owners of the organization assume that their hiring of a uniquely capable leader creates variation in supply and demand to allow for the development of opportunities that can be imperfectly exploited by their marketing organization (Dickson 1992). Based on the delineation of thought on marketing leadership and decision-making, a top marketing leader in a marketing organization (1) is structurally a part of an involved firm’s top management, (2) has authority to make marketing decisions across firm boundaries, and (3) has the capability and capacity to operate throughout the internal–external network.

Network Alliances and Collaborations

As applicable to a boundary-spanning marketing organization, eight of the organization theories in Table 3.2 have an intellectual cluster centered on “network alliances and collaborations” (i.e., behavioral theory of the firm, information economics theory, network theory, resource dependence theory, signaling theory, social capital theory, theory of multimarket competition, and transaction cost economics).

  • Network theory: Actors, activity links, and resource ties make up a business-focused network; the overall network involves creation of a blend of strong and weak ties between nodes that match the boundary-spanning marketing organization’s needs in order to maximize the organization’s performance.

  • Theory of multimarket competition: Boundary-spanning marketing organizations’ competition overlaps in multiple geographic markets. Mutual forbearance (a form of tacit collusion) may reduce the market-level intensity of competition between two organizations when the multimarket contact between them increases, such as when product markets overlap significantly.

  • Social capital theory: Networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs. Sensemaking among individuals in boundary-spanning marketing organizations is a key to trust-building in supply chains and market networks.

  • Behavioral theory of the firm: Organizations should be viewed as consisting of a number of coalitions, and the role of management is to achieve resolution of conflict and uncertainty avoidance across all parts of the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Resource dependence theory: This theory describes the sources and consequences of power of boundary-spanning marketing organizations embedded in networks of interdependencies and social networks that revolve around the control and dependence on vital external resources in the environment.

  • Information economics theory: This theory states that information has economic value in networks; it is a branch of microeconomic theory focused on how information affects economic decisions of a boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Signaling theory: This theory involves one firm (the agent) conveying some meaningful information about itself and/or its products and services to another party (the principal). For example, organizations often use costly marketing initiatives to “signal” the type of marketing organization they are and the products that they sell to reduce information asymmetry.

  • Transaction cost economics: Costs can be used to evaluate exchanges that are internal and external to networks. This theory views the boundary-spanning marketing organization as a governance structure that focuses on identifying, based on total costs, the exchanges that should be conducted within and outside the scope of an organization’s boundaries.

Broadly, as a summary of the earlier discussion, network theory involves creating a blend of strong and weak ties between nodes that matches the firm’s needs in order to maximize its performance. Network theory describes, explains, and predicts relations among linked entities (e.g., Granovetter 1973; Thorelli 1986). These linked entities consist of actors (i.e., nodes), resource ties, and activity links (Håkansson 1989). Actors control the resources and perform the activities. Activities link resources to each other; an activity occurs when one or several actors combines, develops, exchanges, or creates resources by using other resources. Resources, in the network context, include input goods, financial capital, technology, personnel, and marketing.

Networks are important to effective and efficient operations of the marketing organization. However, networks do not align themselves to just one marketing organization. In fact, the theory of multimarket competition (Edwards 1955; Simmel 1950) stresses this notion by envisioning “a firm occupying a potentially unique market domain that is defined by activities in various geographic-product markets … if the market domains of competing firms overlap in multiple geographic-product markets, the firms are engaged in multimarket competition” (Jayachandran et al. 1999, p. 50). As such, marketing organizations often collaborate with and also compete against other marketing organizations in multiple marketplaces, industries, and supply chains. Social capital theory serves as a good foundation for these potential dual roles of collaboration and competition. Social capital theory’s central premise is that networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs (Homburg et al. 2010b; Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 242), providing their members with “the collectivity-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word” (Bourdieu 1986, p. 249). Socially, marketing organizations and the marketplace are also composed of people, and the interpersonal behaviors among these people (such as the “credits” and trust they build with each other; cf. Gundlach and Cannon 2010) shape the organization’s activities and outcomes. This is where the behavioral theory of the firm provides helpful guidance.

The behavioral theory of the firm holds that organizations should be viewed as consisting of coalitions, and the role of management is to achieve resolution of conflict and uncertainty avoidance within the confines of bounded rationality (Cyert and March 1963/1992). The reasons why the coalitions are created in the network exemplify much of what resource dependence theory encompasses. A significant portion of resource dependence theory is to describe the sources and consequences of power of marketing organizations embedded in networks of interdependencies and social networks that revolve around the control of and dependence on vital external resources in the environment (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Similar to the discussion of strategic resources, information (or knowledge in terms of the KBV) serves as the glue that holds together the network and collaborations. By extension, information economics theory can serve to crystallize how information generation and dissemination affect resource allocation and marketing decisions.

A key element is that information has economic value in understanding the network and any individual collaboration between firms (Akerlof 1970; Spence 1974; Stiglitz 1961). Given that information is used, certain firm-level “signals” may play a role as well. Even within internal networks, but certainly within networks external to the firm, some firms use signaling, rooted in signaling theory, to convey meaningful information about themselves and/or their products and services to another party (Spence 1973). Such signaling can create a more advantageous position for a firm in the network, one that leads to advantages in future transactions. For example, it may cost the firm less to engage with another firm in the future if certain signals are sent through the network. As an extension, transaction cost economics can be used to identify, based on total costs, the exchanges that should be conducted within and outside the firm’s boundaries (Williamson 1975), i.e., should the internal network and/or collaborations be used to solve a particular need, or should the external network and/or collaborations be invoked to solve the need? Based on the delineation of thought on networks and collaboration, collaboration and competition exist in a marketing organization’s networks, both internal and external, and the nature of the collaboration and competition is a function of the power position of the organizations within the network and the information utility which they possess about the core competencies most valuable to the network.

Domestic and Global Marketplace

As applicable to a boundary-spanning marketing organization, eight of the organization theories in Table 3.2 have an intellectual cluster centered on the “domestic and global marketplace” (i.e., contingency theory, eclectic theory of international production, industrial organization, institutional theory, organizational ecology, stakeholder theory, systems theory, and theory of the multinational enterprise). As such, within the boundaries of the marketing organization, the “domestic and global marketplace” permeates the fabric (cf. Webster and White 2010) of these eight theories and serves as a focal point for integration and knowledge insight.

  • Eclectic theory of international production: This theory provides a three-tiered framework for a boundary-spanning marketing organization to use in determining if it is beneficial to pursue foreign direct investment based on its (potential) advantages in ownership, location, and internalization in the marketplace.

  • Theory of the multinational enterprise: This theory focuses mainly on the control or governance of value-added activities of firm structures, with control/governance implications for the makeup of the boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Institutional theory: This theory focuses on the processes by which marketplace behavior is established. A boundary-spanning marketing organization tends to be isomorphic to other organizations in its market environment, with organizations resembling each other and behaving similarly over time and with an organization’s strategies converging via three mechanisms—coercive, mimetic, and normative.

  • Systems theory: This theory addresses interdependence of networks of firms in the marketplace. Every system, regardless of its nature (e.g., mechanical, biological, social) is composed of multiple elements that are interconnected; this is especially true in the holistically (cf. Shook et al. 2004) viewed boundary-spanning marketing organization.

  • Stakeholder theory: There are multiple stakeholders in the firm’s marketplace. Managing primary stakeholder relationships (i.e., customers, employees, suppliers, shareholders, communities, and regulators) is essential for the boundary-spanning marketing organization because, at a minimum, not doing so can be detrimental to the achievement of marketing goals and the organization’s performance objectives.

  • Industrial organization: This theory focuses on the strategic behavior of firms, the structure of markets, and their interactions. The market success of an industry in developing products and/or services for customers depends on the collective actions of the firms in the industry, and boundary-spanning marketing organizations within an industry are identical regarding the market resources they control.

  • Organizational ecology: This theory focuses on understanding the environmental conditions under which organizations emerge, grow, and die. Boundary-spanning marketing organizations that do not adapt their culture, processes, and activities to become appropriately market oriented may be selected out of the population (i.e., marketplace).

  • Contingency theory: There is flexibility in the firm matching the demands of the marketplace, with different organizational units within a boundary-spanning marketing organization possibly facing different market demands.

The clearest starting point in this category is the eclectic theory of international production (Dunning 1980). It provides a three-tiered framework that can be used to determine whether it is beneficial to pursue a foreign direct investment. This so-called eclectic theory centers on advantages in the areas of (1) ownership (production- or firm-specific advantages such as comparative advantage), (2) location-specific advantages, and (3) market internalization. Regarding market internalization, the logic is to continually evaluate whether it is better for the firm to exploit an international opportunity itself than for it to sign an agreement with a foreign firm (Buckley and Casson 1976, 2011). A parallel can be drawn to the internal–external network focus of the marketing organization (i.e., when should the marketing organization use internal resources, external network resources, or a combination of the two?).

An important issue in this respect can be gleaned from the theory of the multinational enterprise (Hymer 1960/1976). Hymer’s theory focuses mainly on the control or governance of value-added activities of firms but helps answer questions regarding when value-added activities should be considered for development relative to the control/governance of such activities (cf. Gilliland et al. 2010). “Control is desired in order to fully appropriate the returns of certain skills and abilities” (Hymer 1960/1976, p. 25); “unequal ability of firms is a sufficient condition for foreign operations” (Hymer 1960/1976, p. 46) but not a necessary one. “The firm is a practical institutional device that substitutes for the market. [In some sense,] the firm internalizes or supersedes the market. An approach to our problem is to ask why the market is an inferior method of exploiting the advantage; that is, we look at imperfections in the market” (Hymer 1960/1976, pp. 47–48). Hymer centers on “advantages” as the main thesis; thus, marketing advantages are critically important to the success of marketing organizations internationally, and the focus of the internalization of markets is not on reducing costs but instead on better exploiting the firm’s advantages. This is very similar to the notion of networks in the marketing organization. The focus on networks is not on reducing costs but instead is on gaining a positional advantage for the boundary-spanning marketing organization (cf. Day and Wensley 1988; Hult and Ketchen 2001; Hult et al. 2005).

The cost and other complexities of the organization in the global marketplace can best be portrayed by institutional theory and systems theory. These form the components for the “global identity” of the firm (e.g., Westjohn et al. 2009). “Institutional theory attends to the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure … it considers the processes by which structures, including schemas, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior … it inquires into how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse” (Scott 2005, p. 461). Systems theory proposes that every system, regardless of its nature (e.g., mechanical, biological, social) is composed of multiple elements that are interconnected (Bertalanffy 1969; Kast and Rosenzweig 1972). In this sense, systems theory seeks to understand scientific phenomena by considering the interdependence of networks of firms and other entities within a larger system (Scott 1981).

While the environmental and marketplace complexities foundationally rest well in institutional theory and systems theory, stakeholder theory is needed to explain the scope of the “actors” connected to the marketing organization in the marketplace. Stakeholder theory addresses morals and values in managing a firm that has to deal with a multitude of constituent groups other than shareholders (Freeman 1984). As stated earlier, it views the firm as “an organizational entity through which numerous and diverse participants accomplish multiple, and not always entirely congruent, purposes” (Donaldson and Preston 1995, p. 70). Stakeholder theory focuses the marketing organization’s efforts on developing and nurturing exchanges with a multitude of constituent groups other than customers and shareholders. As such, the stakeholder approach seeks to broaden a marketing manager’s vision of his/her responsibilities beyond being customer and profit oriented (cf. Mitchell et al. 1997).

As soon as the multiple layers of the marketplace are engaged in the scope of what the marketplace entails for the marketing organization, a number of theories become applicable (e.g., industrial organization economics, organizational ecology, contingency theory). Industrial organization theory is rooted in economics and focuses on the strategic behavior of firms, the structure of markets, and their interactions (Bain 1956, 1959; Chamberlin 1933; Mason 1939), ultimately affecting the performance of firms (Schmalensee 1985). For the marketing organization this means that the synergy between the organization’s marketing strategy and market structure serves as the essential scope to leverage market performance. The context for such synergy is the marketplace as the environment of business operations. This brings in organizational ecology and contingency theory.

Organizational ecology focuses on understanding the environmental conditions (e.g., market turbulence, technological turbulence, and competitive intensity) under which marketing organizations emerge, grow and change, and die (Hannan and Freeman 1977). Based on Gailbraith (1973), contingency theory suggests that there is no one best way to organize a marketing organization, and each way of organizing is not equally effective. Contingency theory is an outgrowth of systems design and “is guided by the general orienting hypothesis that organizations whose internal features best match the demands of their environments will achieve the best adaptation … [as such], the best way to organize depends on the nature of the environment to which the organization relates” (Scott 2005, p. 89). Thus, contingency theory coupled with IO economics and organizational ecology gives rise to the notion that marketing organizations both influence and are influenced by the marketplace in which they operate. Based on these integrated thoughts on the domestic and global marketplace, marketing organizations, partially due to their internal-external network collaborations and internal-external resource activities, have to operate in internal-external domestic and global networks and attend to the needs and wants of multiple stakeholders and multiple levels of marketplace influences.